It is sad when Americans speak as if they do not understand their own democratic tradition. From the Federalist Papers on down American democracy has NOT been simply the rule of the majority (which may mean the rule of the mob or the emotions of the moment). Essential traditions such as checks and balances, loyal opposition, free discourse, due process, limited government, rule of law, independent courts, and so on make American Democracy workable and good. American Orthodox could be explaining this to brothers elsewhere, not flirting with episcopal autocracy. It is not congregationalism to want checks and balances in the Church, just a realistic understanding that ordination or even consecration does not create perfect wisdom and selflessness.

C. S. Lewis wrote:
"I am a democrat [believer in democracy] because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that every one deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. . . . I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost. Much less a nation. . . . The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters."

We can certainly debate and, in the process of respectful discussion, REFINE our understanding of the bishop as pastor and leader, but the bishop as autocrat should simply be off the table.

Some (not all) of the elements the Church has taken from the experience of living under monarchical societies may be good and useful. Many elements taken from imperial eras, let alone the Turkocratia, should be firmly set aside. Instead we can graft on the best of our current society.

Open discussion. Checks and balances. None but fallen men work in any parish, diocese, or autocephalous Church. No other kind is available.

I've said it before and I'll say it again & again, "Before + Jonah was consecrated, was he given a FULL battery of psychiatric tests?" If not, why not? When will everyone learn that when you are dealing with celibates and monks, you are NOT dealing with "normal" personalities. Normal men seek out women and have families. Monasticism is a special "gift" and not every man can do this. Widowers are different, but may have serious psychological issues. NEWS FLASH: Have the entire Synod of the OCA go through a battery of tests. Any and all candidates for bishop should also be tested. If this were a policy in the past, all Orthodox churches would have been saved much turmoil!

(Editor's note: This is standard practice in many other churches. However, many clerics resist this. I do not understand why. )

Remember that monasticism only in the last 100 years was assumed to mean 'never married'. For most of our church history most of the monastics were widowers, with a few never married among them.

Every few centuries less than a handful of never married monastic produced some truly great work. A few great lights every few centuries is not an amazing track record... and now we propse to survive by deemming it wise to further restrict leadership to ordrained young, never married monastics?

We adapt to the virtual extinction of the working age widower or OCANEWS will one day still have lots to publish but nobody much left in the church to read it, except the people about whom it writes.

Seriously, if you are a parent and you have had a very sick child, when you hear that little phrase "our child has suffered for a long time" you know more about what that really means in four seconds than an unmarried man could guess after years of school. These can't even pick out who in a crowd are 'their' priest's family.

Please now. Let's restore the balance we once had while we still have people around to make a go of it.

Subjecting Christians to psychiatry, that spawn of Satan birthed from the evil head of Frued? Really? Have the demons so blinded us to the history of our oppressionat the hands of the Communists that we would use their tools against our own people?

(Editor's note: Freud was a Communist? Pyschiatry is the spawn of Satan? Has anybody told Frasier Crane, or Niles? Really Matt, you sound more like Tom Cruise and the Scientology lot than an Orthodox Christian whose churches support OCAMPR - The Orthodox Christian Association of Medicine, Pyschology and Religion which exists to foster interdisciplinary dialogue and promote Christian fellowship among helping professionals in medicine, psychology and religion. Members pursue an understanding of the whole person which integrates the basic assumptions of medicine, psychology and religion within the Orthodox Christian faith in educating and serving Church and community. And not one is a Communist , or Satan spawn as far as I know...)

#1.2.2
Matt Karnes of St. Nicholas Church in Saratoga, California
(Link)
on
2011-03-01 18:44

Dear Mr. K:

Christ is in our midst!

You may be reassured by a wonderful Orthodox book (translated from the French) Jean-Claude Larchet's Mental Disorders and Spiritual Healing: Teachings from the Early Christian East published by Sophia Perennis is useful in this regard. The Truth and the truth are both necessary to set us free.

Sometimes the brain (like the pancreas) gets sick and needs medicine.

Sometimes mom ingested toxins like alcohol while the baby was developing.

Sometimes an illness affects our adult brain profoundly.

Sometimes a drug.

Sometimes we choose sin and change ourselves.

Sometimes (often?) the nous is darkened.

Sometimes there is a demonic presence.

Sometimes the psyche gets damaged and grows strangely from mistreatment early and bad programming, like a tree struck by lightning early.

Often a combo.

The priest has the primary role -- to establish spiritually what is at work -- and he not a psychiatrist can diagnose and prescribe for the sins, the nous, the possibility of demonic presence.

A psychiatrist can help with the brain, the body's illnesses, and the wounds of the ill-treated and ill-informed psyche.

If you would allow insulin for your diabetic child, if you take a vitamin when you need one because you "lack" enough from your diet, hopefully you would be as kind and rationale if your brain was missing a chemical or had extra ones that made you unable to think.

A human being who has been hurt and harmed early, even before the child has words and certainly no coping skills to manage it, needs a way to learn how to respond differently and to heal so he or she can experience how God meant families to be.

Some folks wear their early hurt in easy ways to see -- they may be very large or very thin, they may dress poorly or very very well. Sometimes they can't manage anger well and eat or drink to manage it artificially. Some hide it well by joviality and lovingkindness on their faces while their spirits despair or caretake others until they are too stressed themselves and falter. If you see that in someone, I have learned to wonder, not to judge.

Illness in the brain and nous is real and it can be healed, sometimes just by Orthodoxy itself (Orthodox Psychotherapy by Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos) but sometimes more is needed. As my priest says, being humble means being real about who we are and what we need.

You are wise to be prudent about a psychiatrist -- look for someone with good training, integrity and a good spiritual father

In our case, I sense that the Synod is trying to think of all possibilities here and for that I applaud them, including the way in which the leave was suggested, privately. Apparently he responded publicly. Sometimes an intervention doesn't go well at first but later the person realizes the good intent behind it. And we can all burn out, that simple. I hope the Metropolitan will truly enter a period of rest and reflection and discovery about anything which might be affecting him. We are fragile beings with a delicately balanced equilibrium sometimes. If the Metropolitan is behaving or coming across unusually for him, I think the Synod is being wise and humane to give him time to become himself again while caring for the Church themselves.

NEWS FLASH: We are ALL sinners and ALL are spiritually "ILL" and in NEED of each other and the Lord! The Church is the 'home of sinners' and the 'hospital for the spiritually sick'---we are ALL "abnormal" by the standards of the world! PLUS: who's going to test the psychologists and psychiatrists? (we all know that they are among the MOST wierd!)

All candidates for Holy Orders are put through extensive psychological tests BEFORE they are ordained to the diaconate and most eparchies delay the ordination of monastic deacons and priests for several years beyond the canonical age requirements. Let's face it: anyone who wishes to follow a God-man who died over two thousands years ago and who people claim has risen from the dead will be consider-ed "disturbed" from now on until the end of the world! As we've said before: the more healthy our monastic life is in these United States---the more healthy will be the place where we can draw vocations to the episcopal rank. In the end there's no guarantee that any of us are well enough to assume the leadership of a local Church, but the best rule still seems to be that the more one has grown in authentic holiness---the more likely he will he will be able to shoulder the burden. We are also called to believe that the GRACE of the Holy Mystery of Orders carries with it the healing of infirmity and the overcoming of all obstacles that stand in the way of carrying out this state in life---but still a man must cooperate with these graces and constantly seek an hour by hour minute by minute growth in holiness and closeness to the Lord whom he seeks to follow. In the end, it is CHRIST'S Church and He will always save His bride from the evil one and from distruction!

In that same Lord, who is Risen and alive---and who is constantly calling us to LIFE in all its fullness,

"All candidates for Holy Orders are put through extensive psychological tests BEFORE they are ordained to the diaconate and most eparchies delay the ordination of monastic deacons and priests for several years beyond the canonical age requirements."

Really? In what Church or jurisdiction does this actually happen to either married or unmarried candidates, and what accountability group gets to see the test results? How 'extensive' are these supposed tests, and are they in any way uniform from diocese to diocese, seminary to seminary, jurisdiction to jurisdiction?

And what about the musical chairs of problem clergy who somehow slipped through whatever tests were done prior to their ordination-- after all, even such tests don't guarantee anything-- clergy that are moved from parish to parish, diocese to diocese, jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Does the receiving jurisdiction get to see any records of tests that were done prior to ordination, and/or do they ever do their own reassessment prior to transferring an individual in? And what accountability group has any say about such transfers?

What would this testing seek to prove? Many spiritually gifted people are distinctly different from what psychologists may be inclined to see as normal. St. Paul, for example. Or even Our Lord Himself. Is a person a great aescetic or a crazed anorectic? Were people like St. Anthony battling demons or just insane? Were the sylites holy men or simply anti-social in the extreme? You see the problem. And is a psychologist the person who ought to be making that call?

"issues surrounding Fr. Symeon Kharon, a monastic who, together with and a group of nuns from Greece, was brought by the Metropolitan to start a monastery in the DC area"

Were there actually issues or concerns with Fr. Symeon Kharon, or was the issue the mere fact that he was brought here and the plans were put in place for a D.C. monastery unileraterally by Met Johah without consulting anyone?

Lord have mercy! Just before Met Jonah's election, the OCA looked like it was falling apart. Now it looks like it is even worse shape than before.

(Editor's note: The report did not address the Metropolitan's plans to create a monastery in DC. The issues were otherwise.

As for your concern about "worse shape than before", let me ask you this: Who is healthier? The one who admits a medical problem and attempts to cure it, or the one who denies it ? Who is in more trouble: the one who sees an iceberg ahead and turns the ship, or the one who, seeing the iceberg doesn't because so far, so good? The turmoil in the OCA over the past 5 years has resulted in the removal of officers who were misusing funds and their positions. While difficult we are clearly better off living within our means, than continually (secretly) mortgaging our future. The truth, integrity, accountability, &transparency are more sustainable than an ephemeral Potemkin Village "show" predicated on misuse and secrets. In this sense, we are far better off than 5 years ago, and getting better. We still have a way to go - perhaps longer than we care to admit - but we are certainly on the path again.)

Certainly the OCA is better off now in terms of living within its means but I'm not so sure about the openness and transparency. The move to oust Fr. Alexander Garklavs really stinks and appears to be enormously short-sighted. As the Chancellor through one of the most turbulent times in the history of the OCA, he has an enormous wealth of knowledge and experience that just can't be replaced overnight. The OCA would have been much better off if the Holy Synod had worked out a reasonable transition plan as it did witht the Treasurer position. By just up and firing the guy (come on, let's not mince words his "voluntary resignation" was nothing of the sort) the OCA is once again vulnerable to a lawsuit for wrongful termination. And by the way, did Fr. Alexander get the same deal as Mr. Bodnar did a few years ago, vis a vis six months of severance? The AAC is just around the corner, they could have worked something out until then. On the surface, this move just appears to be dumb and vindictive.

And why did they, the Holy Synod, make this move? Did Fr. Alexander do something that was, indeed, wrong other than speaking up about something he felt passionate about? No, it appears that they did it just to pacify the metropolitan and to make the problem go away. Congratulations, this is an enormous step backwards. And how about the Potemkin Village press release. All's well, nothing to look at here, just a few little changes.

If this is how the new Holy Synod wishes to conduct its affairs then these guys haven't learned a darn thing from the last five years. It is truly business back to the good old days of pay, pray and obey. If the Holy Synod feels so good about what they did, why didn't they get a vote of the metropolitan council before they did it? The answer is that they didn't really consider the metropolitan council an integral part of the decision. Here's an idea, why don't the laity lock out the bishops? I'm frankly sick and tired of a few old guys in long robes parading around and speaking on behalf of "the church." The ones who really don't get it are the bishops. The "axios" at the elevation to the episcopacy and the ones who pay their salaries are the laity. How about a little modicum of respect to the laity when it comes to a decision about whether or not to let the chancellor go on the spot? The metropolitan council members are the individuals elected to help administer the affairs of the church. Whether it is in the statute of the OCA or not, the metropolitan council should have been consulted on this termination.

You mean to tell me after doing exhaustive searches for each one of these positions, that each one was a bust? At what point is it not the individuals but something deeper in the organization that's the problem? When every executive position in an organization turns over in less than four years, the culture of the organization is the problem, not the individuals. And the basic two sentence blurb about Fr. Alexander Garklav's "resignation" without even any acknowledgement of his contribution over the past few years says it all. What a pathetic organization.

Metropolitan Jonah provided himself to be a phony leader by trying to deceive his flock that ignoring wrongs committed was actually forgiveness. Is is not. Moving on and pretending nothing happened is not forgiveness and repentance.

Metropolitan Jonah you harmed the people entrusted to your care by deceiving them. We believed you and You lied to us all! I hope you grasp that your phony humility has harmed the faith of many.

Memo to Alaska, send your arranged marriage bishop back to the HOOMIES Cash on Delivery. Alaska needs no more suffering. Call off the election now for your own well being.

Folks in New York and New Jersey need to hear from Bishop Michael. Does he support +Jonah phony forgiveness? Because if he does than certainly there is great cause for concern about his ability to lead.

I agree with Michael. Why has our Metropolitan been exalting those who were closed to RSK? I hope and pray that the new dean of St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington, DC will no longer be the "shadow candidate" either for Chancellor of the Diocese of Washington, DC or of the entire OCA. He was one of RSK's right hand men.

Like another writer, I would like to see an official statement from our Holy Synod as to why RSK remains on salary at the OCA parish in Venice, FL. It is most inappropriate after his defrocking.

I am saddened by these events, and am praying for our young church and for our metropolitan.

I find it fascinating that no one has chosen to make some clever remark to your point! It is hearsay but spun to make it look like fact. There is a mixture of the truth of fallen human behavior (no less accountable) and weakness with a battle over vision and direction of the OCA. A battle over the traditions of the Church I'd underway. The reason he Met used the word congregationalist is because he was making the point that many in the OCA are not acting Orthodox but in a secular, Pop-American, and heterodox way. This issue the issue for the Met but it gets spun into being about power or other ad Hominem attacks. The OCA needs to decide if we want to regularize traditionally in accordance with the rest of the Orthodox world.

(Editor's note: God forbid. Be a state church? Or be dominated by Muslims and dictators? Call me Pop-American, but if that is "regularize" in accordance with the rest of the Orthodox world, count me out. One does not have to get the disease in order to overcome it. As for "hearsay" let us see what the documents actually say, and then let us re-examine who said what, when. I'm willing. Are you?)

As a potential convert looking in, this development is very disturbing. How do you expect to convince people that the Orthodox Church is the one, true church, the direct descendant of the church established on the day of Pentecost when the hierarchy ...." Come back and see me when you get (it) together.

(Editor's note: Forgive us all, not just the Bishops, Kirk, for disappointing you. We are not perfect, and never have been, and never will be. That does not keep us from trying, nor our Bishops from pointing us in that direction. You will not find perfection on earth, for our true home is in heaven. All the Orthodox Church has to offer is the continuing perfection of the Eucharist, the means by which we can touch, taste and join with transcendence, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, the blessing of our Bishop, the ministrations of our priest amid the prayers our people. The rest is, well, just history. Hope to see you again sometime.You are always welcome. )

Editor, you will excuse my cynicism if I question the efficacy of the Eucharist in light of the ongoing scandals.

(Editor's note: Alas, that would smack of the heresy of Donatism. The Orthodox teaching is that the efficacy of the Eucharist is dependent solely on God; not the worthiness or unworthiness of the cleric offering it to the people. I agree , though, it is so much better when our pastors act like it in all their words and deeds.)

The issues raised by Kirk (perhaps unbeknownst to him) in this context are broader than anything Donatus ever contemplated, and goes well beyond the issue of the spiritual “worthiness” of the celebrant.

Could you please do us all a favour and spell out in clear and unambiguous detail how and where your response differs from the Papal-Roman doctrine of *ex opere operato*?

When the Holy Spirit pronounces “Ichabod” over a place - nominally and officially Orthodox, and thus withdraws from it, not only are its clergy affected, all its Sacraments (including the Eucharist) by definition are void of spiritual content and hence spiritual legitimacy . . .

For example, with the "Eucharist", in that place, there will be no Divine, Holy Spirit response to any Epiclesis prayer - no matter how “worthy” or otherwise the celebrant, the text of the Divine Liturgy remains pneumatically inert and purely human - without any real spiritual Divine content, and thus because the Holy Spirit has chosen to remain absent from that place, that same Holy Spirit will thus not “change” the Holy Gifts in that place into the Body and Blood of Christ - even though the text of the Divine Liturgy proclaims that this has happened.

I am perfectly aware that this notion terrifies all Erastian Ecclesiologists, and most higher clergy playing Sacramental “power-politics” with their subordinates.

Yet during the inter-Conciliar period between the first and second Ecumenical Councils, when many Arian clergy were in-place pronouncing Orthodox Words from the Divine Liturgy, is anyone going to have the insolence to affirm genuine Pneumatic-presence in their Liturgies, and hence claim any genuine Holy-Spirit association with any Epiclesis prayer which crossed their lips?

Only when that place was purged of all Arianism and Orthodoxy was restored, did the Holy Spirit return and resume an association with the Epiclesis prayer.

I would hate to think that you are advocating (albeit through the back door) that Sabellianism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophystism, Monotheletism, Iconoclasm, etc. and its places of ‘worship’ were in any manner "Spirit-bearing", or being capable of being "Spirit-bearing".

Even the faintest whiff of that idea places you foul of the Doctrinal Decisions and Anathemas of Ecumenical Councils.

Here, these examples are clear-cut and obvious.

I would also hate to think that you would advocate the idea that either or both Constantine and Sylvester were in any manner "Spirit-bearing" when the former installed the latter as bishop of Rome.

I would also hate to think that you would dare to attach the title "Spirit-bearing" to anyone or anything to do with the Papacy of Damasus of Rome (Pope 1 Oct 366 to 11 Dec 384). Or, for that matter, to his successor, Siricus (Pope Dec 384 to Nov 399).

I would also hate to think that you would attribute the title "Spirit-bearing" to the Iconoclast Council of 754, or to the Byzantine Emperors who were also Iconoclast.

Do I have to continue and to weary you with example after example in Church History (and thus overload this blog-site with detail) where the Holy Spirit's absence was so clearly manifest as to make it obvious to all but the most spiritually blind??

What I am doing, dear Rdr John is taking an incredibly close look at "where the Spirit is blowing", discerning the patterns disclosed therein and drawing the appropriate conclusions. Doing so is not "insolence" but drawing on true Hochmah / Sophia.

And yes, dear Rdr John, to quote another blogger on this site who quoted Papal sources, the "Smoke from Hell" has invaded the OCA in recent times, and numerous controversial official OCA decisions in the last 10 years have not been "Spirit-bearing". And many truly "Spirit-bearing" reverend fathers have witnessed to that fact.

Finally, I trust that you are not a graduate of Pollyanna's school of Ecclesiology.

I appreciate and share in your discouragement over the state of the OCA. But Orthodoxy is a lot bigger than the OCA. Secondly, and more importantly, the Church here on earth is not a hotel for plaster saints; it is a hospital for sinners; and every single person in it, including the doctors, nurses, &c., are also patients. One of the things I especially appreciate about Orthodoxy is that it allows me to take off my adequacy masks, face up to my manifold sins and imperfections, and cry "Lord, have mercy." No "second blessing" stuff; just the hard slog of following Christ one day at a time, often stumbling and falling face down in the mud, but being raised and cleansed by His grace to keep on keeping on. So hang in there. If there's room in Christ's Church for a clod like me, there's plenty of room for you.

Remember the 'Donatism exemption' ends when misdoing is not an accepted culture among church leaders. When there is a defacto culture of misdoing among leaders (no matter what's written on paper or admitted to in public) the church terms for that have dire consequences for all.

This struggle is not unique to the OCA, never doubt that. All Orthodoxy in the US and many other places faces this.

Can the leadership police its own ranks? So far, getting caught means getting paid for life without having to do any work while keeping one's rank. Whatta deal. Please give generously!

As a one who left the Evangelical church and became Orthodox 12 years ago, I understand your frustration. However, it's important to keep some perspective on these events.

Throughout the Scriptures, we see similar things happening in the early years of the Church as well (as well as throughout it's 2000-year history). Peter and Paul had a major dispute over the Galatians; Paul and Barnabas had a huge blow-up over Mark, which caused the split-up of their missionary team; Paul was so angry with Mark (because of Mark deserting the missionary team), that the two didn't even speak with each other for many years. Hey, I see a common denominator here -- Paul!

Remember, the Church is the Ark of Salvation -- if it wasn't for the flood on the outside, very few of us would put up with the smell on the inside.

God is still on the throne, and He reigns in majesty and glory. He's got everything under control, and He will work all things out for our good, and for His glory.

Fr. Vincent

(Editor's note: I had not heard that particular reference to the Ark, the flood, and the stench before as an analogy of the Church before, but as my English cousins would say: Brillant. Thanks.)

I see no other alternative hypothesis, other than a quasi-"well it's visible but if the Church does bad things it's all of sudden invisible" approach, which is having our cake and eating it too. We need to just admit the Church is NOT perfect, never was never will be. Anything else IMO is an attempt at poor apologetics to make ourselves feel better about being Orthodox and telling ourselves that everything will be alright in the end. (oh and it comforts us to tell ourselves OUR Church is "perfect" and yours is not) Christ may be perfect but the Church is not. It's disconcerting but I think it is the truth.

Chuck - it is the teaching of the Orthodox Church that "The Church" is perfect.

(Editor's note: As the Body of Christ, Mike, as the Body of Christ. Not as a institution composed of fallible humans existing in history, subject to political, social, economic, cultural and other distortations, so painfully obvious as we continue our pilgrimage towards heaven....)

For me, it always comes down to, "I believe." I can't help it. I believe in the apostolic witness to the Resurrection. All else flows from that. If the Resurrection is true, then I have accepted the Apostolic witness, and the rest is for me to receive. It's not happy. I don't like the human church very much. But it's what I'm given. I've not been given authority to start one (so long, independent churches), I've not been given permission to reject the Apostolic one. (So long, schismatics and the disgruntled.) I've been given commandment by the Lord whose Resurrection I believe in to be in the Apostolic Church.

For those who cannot accept it, I'll not use fancy words and sleight of hand try to "win" you over. You either believe or you don't. If you do, obey the Lord. If you don't, it doesn't concern you.

May God continue to have mercy upon me. I became Orthodox 14ish years ago. There have been several instances, precipitated by events both within and without, during which my main reason for staying put was because either I learned of a saint in the contemporary Church whose example compelled me to see again the potential for overwhelming sanctity for those who exemplify all that the Church is called to be, or, to be frank, simply because there is nowhere else to go. If you're looking for a place where you'll see no evidence of the temptations of the flesh and the warfare of the evil one, then I doubt you'll really have any concrete destination for your journey.

I was raised Protestant and now, as an Orthodox, I can't add to the sound defense of our Faith Mark has here offered. But I will tell you to just go ahead and examine every other Christian denomination and religion and civic club there is on all these same points. You'll find that for all our zits and warts that we're no different from any others in the sad emergence of sin.

When I was a Lutheran, my bishop was defrocked for heinous sins. But that isn't why I became Orthodox.

Become Orthodox only because you believe it is, despite the sins of her members, the Church that preserves and practices Christianity in Purity.

Do, Kirk, become Orthodox if you come to believe, after examination of your heart, soul, history, and the Scriptures, that the Orthodox Church preserves in purity the teaching and practice of the original Church.

Although I did not know about all of these troubles before today, I am encouraged that the important painful lessons of the last few years have been taken to heart by most of the OCA leadership. I hope and pray that these events are received in a possitive way by the OCA Faithful, and our brothers and sisters in the other Orthodox Churches here and abroad.

It appears that the OCA is truly dedicated to putting the imperial captivity of the Church behind us, and returning to the true conciliar governance model of the Apostolic period. May God bless and guide our bishops, presbyters, deacons, and lay leaders.

Let's not give the first commenter in this thread the satisfaction of a show to watch.

In this instance, the OCA has functioned in a mature and appropriate way, with the Synod taking action to curb a hierarch whose actions were increasingly out of line with the prayerful, sober judgment of the body of the Church. It behooves all of us to move forward in a similarly sober and mature fashion.

At the NY/NJ Diocesan Assembly that nominated Bp. Michael, there was controversy about the process that had been followed and many wanted more time and more openness. The most powerful speaker that day was a laywoman who stood and begged that the vote be held that day because if the process was extended the ugliness of the internet debate happening around the election would intensify and poison everyone. While I differed with her conclusion, it was impossible to dispute her premise, and as much as I advocated for a bit more time to make people comfortable with the process, I was moved by her argument.

Folks -- this site has proved time and time again the constructive power of transparency to motivate action and to lead to the correction of wrongs. Much of the debate that takes place here is constructive, respectful, and very, very necessary. But each time any one crosses the line with nastiness and low attacks, it undermines both the position that person is advocating and the ability of many to see openness and debate as constructive.

There is a lot to debate and discuss ... no holds barred on the substance, but let's not live down to the inaccurate characterization of what goes on here as "pornography."

We now have several months to contemplate what will happen at the AAC in November ... let's take the time to debate, discuss, and respectfully consider the way forward.

Now you're just being dishonest. There was nothing in the least "vulgar" about the line you took out. Alleging that something I wrote was "vulgar" is just character assassination.

Mark, you've lost all objectivity. You edit out invective you don't like, but add in a lot of your own invective to posts you don't like. It's unfair. You'll just say, "Tough, it's my website, and so I make the rules," but that just shows how unconcerned you are about fairness.

(Editor's note: Well, there is no way to settle this unless I print your vulgarity and let people decide for themselves. I won't. I may have liberal standards, but I do have them, and in my opinion you crossed them. If you don't think so, re-read your line again and think about how it could be read, even if you really didn't mean it that way. Right. End of story. )

I did indeed read your comment as posted on another website and I agree with Mark that it can be read as vulgar, even if you don't understand how. Bless your innocent heart, all things are pure to the pure!

I read that an overwhelming presence of the Holy Spirit was palpable in the room, a holy presence felt by hundreds of people, when Metropolitan Jonah was chosen. Now, it turns out, the Holy Spirit got it wrong? If so, what paltry human(s) got to make that decision?

(Editor's note: The same people who elected him. The Synod. Inspired by the same Holy Spirit. Only this time, the room was smaller.)

Maybe the problem was the people at the AAC thinking they can 'feel' the Holy Spirit or find His presence 'palpable.' Reminds me of the charismatics I used to associate with! And, remarkably, the 'fruit' of that (charismatic) 'spirit' is the same as theirs: leaders who are in it for their own gain.

I have since learned that the way of the Holy Spirit doesn't always 'feel' good or get me excited. After all, it's not that exciting to take up a cross and follow Christ's way of self-denial.

Was it not the same Spirit-filled room of bishops that agreed that Met. JONAH could (or "should") take 60 days off for renewal that decided that Fr. Garklavs should resign?

You can't have it both ways.

(Editor's note: I neither said either decision was "spirit-filled". A group of bishops in a room does not automatically make a "spirit-filled decision", otherwise we would all be Arians, or Nestorians, or Roman Catholics these days. And if some decisions are worthy, that does not mean is every decision taken is "spirit-filled". Not every decision on every topic is predicated on complete and accurate information. We believe in an infallible Church - not infallible men. I suggest you review Church history again for multiple instances of the above.

Let these events show us that it was not the person of Jonah, but the decision of the Body of Christ that was sanctified at that time. We decided that we were, to paraphrase Lao Tzu, sick of being sick. Now, it seems we may be progressing to a new stage in our convalescence.

as for the holy presence being felt in the room,
our enemy, the devil, can manufacture anything, especially feelings engendered by a charismatic speech. the only thing he cannot replicate is sacrificial love.

WOW! Everyone in the "know" could see this coming, but thought it would come to a head in Seattle. It's better NOW! The real issue is the lack of REAL leadership in the OCA. We need a bigger pool of qualified people to choose from. All the more reason to turn to married bishops. Insisting that only celibates and/or monks can lead is a fallacy and an aberration in Orthodox practice!

The Anglicans already ordain married bishops, as do the Polish National Catholic Church, the Old Catholics, and a wide variety of vagante outfits, many of them claiming descent from Aftimios Ofiesh. Since you seem bent on going the way of Ofiesh, you might wish to go ahead and join any one of them.

Amen. There's more than an accidental connection between those within the OCA calling for married bishops and the moribund sects that actually have married bishops, like the Anglican Church and the Old Catholics. The spirit at work in both cases is the spirit of revolution: Throw out all the old ways and get with the times. That spirit is never satisfied, so having just overthrown one primate, it now wants to overthrow another.

(Editor's note: And in both cases it was done so not by crowds with pitchforks, but by their colleagues and peers, their fellow bishops. Oh, I guess that makes Orthodox Bishop's revolutionaries now? All, or just OCA bishops? Must be all, because I remember 2 years ago the Patriarch of Jerusalem was removed; and before that the ARchbishop of Cyprus was removed, and before that, at least two Archbishop's of Athens. So I guess you are right - all Orthodox Bishops are revolutionaries! Shame no one told the Soviets. It could have saved the Church so much trouble....!)

Over and over we come back to this idea. It boggles the mind how anyone could think a person could faithfully and energetically fulfill the office of bishop while raising a family. The reasons for episcopal celibacy go far beyond ideas of property and inheritance. But every time a bishop does something people don't like, it is as predictable as the turning of the earth that someone will start the cry for married bishops.

If it would be hard to "faithfully and energetically fulfill the office of bishop while raising a family," it is at least as difficult to do so while remaining true to a monastic lifestyle. Some can handle it, but, as we've seen, many end up falling short in both their episcopal and monastic callings.

The fact that a bishop's work involves a demanding schedule and frequent travel is all the more reason why the psychological grounding of a spouse might be helpful. Given how thin the OCA's Synod is spread at this point, it would be extremely helpful if married priests could be considered as candidates for consecration.

On the Editor's Note: The fact is, according to the OCA website, the Metropolitan requested leave of absence. According to your website it was forced on the Metropolitan. Later in this thread you bring in other business that he implied elsewhere. The fact is in what is reported on each website differ.

If I explain it to you, you'll find me patronizing, but I think I might get your point a bit, let me frame my thoughts.

Praying for the Metropolitan...how can you contradict unless you damn him to hell and he hasn't done that here. Not it.

Being glad the Synod doesn't sit around 10+ years doing nothing until assessments are withheld...hard to contradict unless Fr. Chris has suggested the Synod hasn't given Metropolitan Jonah enough time, and even if he did suggest such a thing, 10+ years versus 2 does not a contradiction equal...

He wanted to be able to surround himself with "loyal young men?" WHAT THE HECK! If you are the leader of the national church, you do NOT say things like that. His inability to chose his words carefully is further proof of just how far removed from reality and leadership he actually is.

Confess: you're a liar. And the proof is comparing your twisted account of the Synod meeting and the circumstances surrounding it with the account that appears on the OCA website. Or is the entire Synod lying now and you're the one telling the truth?

If you had any integrity at all, you would post a full apology on here before dismantling this tabloid completely.

(Editor's note: I stand by the facts reported. I apologize if they offend, disappoint or anger you. This was not my decision, but the Synod's.)

I would like to know why you suppressed my original comments on here and only posted the brief follow-up. Why the selectivity?

(Editor's note: Sometimes things do just disappear. I try to post everything with a minimum of censorship. If I did not post I felt something in it was offensive or inappropriate. Many times a valid email is not attached, so I have no way to discuss the posting with the author. If you wish please resend together with an email address and I will re-view it and will post, or send you my objections privately if necessary. I apologize for the inconvenience.)

You admit to censoring based on posts being offensive in some cases. This entire website is people offending each other with their opinions of the issues we face as one people in Christ.

You realize how many people are hurt from this website rather than benefit from it in "Certain" circumstances. So I applaud you for admitting you censor and not post certain things, however it is contradictory to say it is due to criticism.

If you censor people, why don't you censor when someone puts down a hierarch by making insulting comments to a sinner who was ordained through Christ's compassion?

Please post this. I'm just curious and the answer would be well needed now. Thanks.

(Editor's note: Because what is offensive is defined by what is said, not who it is said to. It is not less offensive to yell "F*** You" to a homeless person as it is the President. So, if people want to express their opinions to a homeless person, or the President, or a Bishop who ordains sinners, that is their right here. I, on the other hand, reserve the right to not allow those phrses, or sometimes whole remarks, I think most people would consider over the line. I am sure our lines differ. But then again, thats important to learn, and to discuss.)

The actual decision of the Holy Synod, that Metropolitan Jonah will only take leave for 60 days (as opposed to permanently) is extremely disappointing.

It seemed from the initial reports that the Synod had acted out of true pastoral discretion and an abundance of caution, reclaiming control of the OCA for the sake of peace and stability. The official reports reveal this is not the case. 'Wishy washy' at best. Let's not get into the worst...

(Editor's note: The synodal press release does not say "only sixty days". It says sixty days. In sixty days there will be two options: the leave will then be terminated, or extended again. As you may remember, Metropolitan Irinei took several sequential leaves from 1974-1977, when he announced his retirement. Metropolitan Theodosius asked for several leaves, shortly before he announced his retirement in 2004. And Metropolitan Herman requested a leave before his (which was denied). Let's review the question again in sixty days, before you judge the Synod.)

I don't intend to Judge the Synod, I am simply saying their decision is disappointing, dispiriting, even a little disillusioning.

As far as "checking back in 60 days" - the OCA press release sounds pretty certain that Met. Jonah will be recuperated in time to concelebrate the Consecration of Bishop-elect Matthias. I hope you're right, Mark.

Just read the OCA's "official" statement, and compared it to the report on here. Gotta say I'm not impressed. STILL just looks like more of the same kind of spin from the Synod. I hope the Metropolitan Council will have a chance to investigate all this mess for themselves.

(Editor's note: The MC has no responsibilities regarding hierarch's requesting Leaves of Absence. It does, however, have Statutory responsibilities regarding the officers of the Church, and ensuring the policies of the Church are followed. In this case, you can be sure that the "resignation" of Fr. Garklavs will be thoroughly investigated and its findings made known to the whole Church. Spin, or no spin.

I must wholeheartedly agree with Mark Stokoe's editorial response to #2 Anonymous: Despite our problems (of which the Church has always had, from the very beginning!), we are a healthier body because we face our issues, problems, and even scandals!! Let me ask this question: Does anyone think that the situations in the other American jurisdictions are healthier??? Without judging or condemning anyone, isn't the fact that we are dealing with our problems a healthier thing than allowing a despotic Metropolitan like +Philip to circumvent the Scriptures, Holy Tradition, and the Canons by dictatorially reducing his viable diocesan brothers to the level of auxiliaries??

I was the choir director on the last summer-travelling Octet from St Vladimir's Seminary (1998). Going to 77 parishes in 33 states in 13 weeks, parishes that were, by the way, from multiple jurisdictions (OCA, Greek, Antiochian, etc.), I, along with the other seven men, got a good overview of parish life in America. In a nutshell, what I found was that many of the younger parishes, especially the missions, were vibrant with people taking the Gospel seriously!!! When we set up our mobile bookstore after services and/or concerts, I was amazed and pleasantly surprised to see many people were well-informed with the teachings of the Church. For example, when someone asked me what a certain book we were selling was about, before I could answer, a fellow parishioner who had obviously read the book gave an accurate synopsis to the person asking the question. Again, without casting dispersions anywhere, I found that the highest percentage of these serious-minded parishes were in the OCA!! With the unfortunate practice we had for a long time of ordaining clergy who never went to or graduated from a seminary, I must truly and accurately state that many of our lay people in our parishes are better educated in the Faith than some of our hierarchs!! This does not mean that a seminary education automatically makes a person a good pastor or leader. I am saying, again (as I did on this site a few years back [4/11/08], in my Reflection, "The Synod of Bishops: In the Wrong Place in Egypt"), that many of our Church leaders are out-of-touch with the educational and informational level of the people in the parishes. Therefore, the old stand-by behavior of trying to "snow" the people or get them to submit by aggression is obsolete. I, as well as everyone else, is saddened by the events of the last ten years. Yet, as Mark stated, I am not surprised. Nor should anyone be. The Old Testament prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) were warning the clergy of millennia ago of their pharisaic behaviors. Nor is this behavior exclusive to the clergy. I, myself, have to be constantly watchful, for, as St Paul said, our adversary (the devil) is prowling around, ready to devour me and anyone else he hopes to separate from God. Again, I believe that we are, as a Church body, working out our salvation with fear and trembling (as St Paul admonished us) to the best of our ability, growing and changing as an autocephalous Church.

One last point to Mark, in your response to #4 Kirk: Along with offering continuing perfection in the Eucharist, the blessing of our Bishop, and the ministrations of our priest amid the prayers of our people, I believe the Orthodox Church also offers (again, as St Paul states) Christ, and Him crucified!!! I agree with Fr Thomas Hopko of the centrality of the Cross, not only in our preaching, but in our own salvation, both with each of us personally, and also corporately as a Church Body!!

I also want to affirm that exposing the Churches problems and getting them out in the open so we can start dealing with them IS a sign of better health to come. Sweeping things under the rug and pretending they do not exist all for the sake of "protecting people from scandal" is not a sign of health but of weakness and sickness. I totally agree with Mark that this is a another step in the right direction.

There are many ways to be healthier, and that requires one day at a time, which is what the OCA is doing. Things that go bad do not change overnight. That is something the AOCANA needs to learn. That Archdiocese didn't get into the soon to be 3 year mess by making one mistake. It happened gradually over many years, and it continues to be a mess.

Time for someone to put MP on a leave of absence so that the AOCANA can now begin to heal from so much trauma. He'll never come up with the idea himself. Someone - are you listening in Damascus - needs to act now.

+Jonah should be commended for requesting time off. Let's see what 60 days will bring to light and where he will go from there. We don't have to condemn him yet.

I have never called for the resignation or removal of Metropolitan Jonah so I wasn't a member of the 'small group'.

The notion he would call this website pornographic is highly inappropriate; pornography is when you sell images of yourself. I never made a plug nickel risking telling people my thoughts here. I'm sure many people consider me a complete fool for expressing my views; so be it.

I have questioned Metropolitan Jonah's actions and his goals for the church. And I don't believe it has been unwarranted. The fact the editor is a member of the Metropolitan Council and asks so many simple questions about Jonah's intent is really disturbing to me. The intent of the Metropolitan should be vividly clear to a body like the MC and why not the rest of the church, but how about firstly, the Synod? If Jonah wanted to move the HQ to Washington and disagreed with the MC or Synod about it, he could have written a letter to the entire church explaining his reasons, he could have been forthright about meeting with objection, etc. He could have been patient and asked for the matter voted on at the next AAC. If he had clear disagreement from all, he should have reconsidered his position or sought a compromise. I have personal concerns about why DC was so darned important to him. To this date, we don't know if the churches missing money was used for political campaigns, for example. Since RSK is still in a church role, outside appearances would be that he did what he was told and maybe took a small advantage from it.

Messing with autocephaly is not wise. So far, there has been only one man in the USA I believe has taken a good stand against this episcopal assembly business of redefining bishop's boundaries in the US which would require more upheaval than anyone can fathom. He's the old Greek Abp Demetrios, and he has been now credited with senility for his wisdom. For a young man like Metropolitan Jonah, it would be really easy to grasp this issue and try to meet the demands of +Bart, but it is really a huge error because it gives ZERO consideration to the hearts and minds of the church body. ZERO.

Writing the OCAs strategic plan with little reference to the AACs was a cause for concern for me as well; among others unenumerated.

I'd like to believe Metropolitan Jonah is a decent fellow, but he has done things that do not seem wise to me.

If he really wanted to be a good leader for the OCA, he would have embarked on a mission to make things right. A lot of people don't understand how RSK can retain a position in the church, and noone in authority has explained it or bothered. A lot of people would gladly help the church recover from the debts incurred by past wrongs, but noone has even made an attempt at it.

Venturing into ground talking about changing the churches autocephaly, changing the churches headquarters, changing the chancellor, changing this and changing that in your first years in office was very unnerving for even a tangential churchgoer like myself. I started to seriously wonder if church was nothing more than a game and I was a pawn.

I don't know what I hope for on this matter. If Metropolitan Jonah can stop focusing on pseudo political-religious theatre of DC and Moscow and Constantinople, maybe he could still lead the church, but I think he lost the vision of Christ's Teachings being first and I think the last guys did, too, and that might be enough to cost him his leadership which was really a gift bestowed upon him.

His Beatitude is not on a Leave of Absence. If he was there would be a Locum Tenens announced. Please get your facts straight and correct your headline. You are doing a disservice by not understanding church protocol.

(Editor's note: I refer you to the Synod's own announcement just published. A Locum Tenens would be required only if the Metropolitan resigned or was retired. He is still the Metropolitan, and therefore, no need of an LT. What is required is only a Temporary Administrator during the period he will be absent from his office. )

Why did Fr. Garklavs resign? He did nothing wrong. This does not make sense. Can someone explain why the Synod accepted his resignation when in fact we need precisely that kind courage, integrity, and character in our Chancellor?

(Editor's note: I agree. It does not make sense as presented by the Synod.)

Garklavs did something wrong. We saw similar forced resignation with other wrong-doers, like Met. Theidosius, Met. Herman, Bp Nikolai, Kondratick, etc. It is what many hope will happen to Met. Jonah. I guess since he is being perceived as a "hero" it must be spun to look that he is being persecuted.

(Editor's note: Then you know something the MC does not know, nor his fellow committee members, nor his fellow staffers, nor anyone else it seems. Do tell what you think that would be, because the reason Metropolitan Jonah gave did not mention misconduct in any way, but was of a more personal, subjective judgement.)

I was very disappointed in the "sugar-coating" going on in the "official" statement from OCA. It differs too much from account on this site to make be feel as though I could trust what the Synod says and how they say it. Seems like more of the same. I hope the Metropolitan Council will have the opportunity to investigate all of this for themselves.

"The one who step on one law steps on all the laws"
From the beginning Jonah was elected to cover up and to shut up the people commentaries. he was a bandaid for a broken leg.
Now electing Nathaniel is even worst. He is the "FOX IN CHARGE OF THE CHIKEN'S COOP"
Are we stupid ???

(Editor's note: Archbishop Nathaniel has not been elected to anything. As the senior bishop it was, according to protocol, his task to be the temporary administrator until such time as he relinquishs that office to another bishop. THere is nothing that says he cannot do that, which I would imagine he would, after a period, given the press of his duties.)

Perhaps there is a reason Bishop Melchizedek is being made Chancellor. His grace, having spent a number of years away from the OCA, perhaps is the least affected by the difficult dynamics that have taken place in the last number of years. If that is the case, then his grace would be in a good position to provide a clear objective eye as various matters

With regard to his eminence, it is also possible that what had motivated the idea of merging the OCA Romanian episcopate with the Romanian patriarchate's eparchy on these shores is a simple realization. Archbishop Nathaniel probably realizes that there is no way the American parishes of the Church of Romania will enter the OCA what with the turmoil of the last number of years. Given that fundamental fact, it would then seem that leading the OCA Romanians into Church of Romania is the only way there will be at least some reduction in jurisdictions on these shores.

There also seemed for a time to have been a reluctance on the part of Archbishop Nathaniel to involve himself in OCA matters. Perhaps presiding over In Re Kondratick left a sour taste and also motivated the merger proposal. His eminence seems to have gotten over that reluctance, now that the merger seems not to be happening.

Do I remember correctly that his eminence, Archbishop Dimitri, addressed his beatitude as having been elected "President of the Holy Synod?" Perhaps this was meant to let his beatitude know that the Synod expected to have a greater role than had been the case to that time. Perhaps his beatitude kept hearing in his mind's ear the American saying "It's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission." In that vein, his beatitude figured that if things were presented as faits accomplis, everyone would just acquiesce to what has happened and move ahead. If this is the case, then the Synod is putting its collective foot down.

It is then perhaps different from the previous difficulties. The desire to no longer have an "imperial Metropolitan" can be seen as a means of preventing the situation where the previous problems can again occur. The phrase, "young men I can trust," is a bit off-putting though. Working through the processes for decision-making that one finds is slower, but once one works the process (as opposed to busting it up) then when you get to the desired end, it will be ever-more solid and enduring because you have secured the assent of all interested persons. Perhaps the leave(s) will help his beatitude come to that understanding.

Well, no one who visits this website can't say they weren't warned that Metropolitan Jonah would prove to be an unmitigated disaster! But these revelations are even more damning than the most caustic comments made about the Metropolitan from commentators here and elsewhere, myself included. I am amused, however, that Metropolitan Jonah thinks he "knows" pornography when he sees it. It gives one a true understanding of his leadership skills and sense of vision.

Now how about all those brown-nosing anonymous clerics and their theologically-challenged and anonymous lay sidekicks in the seminaries, so-called monasteries, etc., who have been endlessly lecturing the poor slobs in the laity screaming bloody murder these past five years. "Stop complaining, whining, asking questions and talking back to your betters!" Yeah, right.

Finally, I am sorry to say that I don't share Mark's view that the OCA is better off now than it was prior to the revelations of these past five years. However, I do believe that truth is an essential precondition to holiness, and that the Great Adversary is the true father of all lies. If the Synod, with the essential support of the rest of the Church, can really acknowledge this fact and truly move forwarded with Christian humility, charity and fortitude, then there is still some hope that all is not lost and the branch not irreparably withered.

The Metropolitan was placed on a LOA per his request. That is not the impression one receives from reading your posting. The comments in this string attest to the fact that skewed tone creates perceptions that are not reality.

(Editor's note: And then how do you explain his comment to the Diocese of the South, made before the gathering, publicly and heard by dozens that "A small group" was trying to "remove him"? Why would he say that if he was planning on asking for a Leave " for spiritual reflection"?

I am reminded of a comment of the French ambassador to the Russian court in the 18th century on learning yet another Tsar had succumbed to "Typhoid", and another had taken his place. "At least invent another disease", he said.

On the hand, " Spiritual reflection" is at least more creative than " for reasons of health", or God forbid in this case " to spend more time with his family"... It is not more true though, given the facts. )

So who is this small group, Mark? This is just another example of inflammatory rhetoric with no basis in fact. I am very far removed from the mainstream and I have heard a group of clergy speaking disparagingly about +Jonah. These could very well be the same people who were willing to keep quiet when Herman, Robert, and Nicholai were pulling the strings. My opinion is that +Jonah is honest, humble, a good Christian, and deeply concerned about the OCA and unity of the Orthodox Church in the Americas. Either show me where that is a wrong assumption or where +Jonah has clearly stated he wants to give our church to the Russians or where he clearly states we do not want to be independent. It seems to be acceptable for us to read a statement like this and not receive any kind of explanation. Why don't we deserve an explanation? Why do we have to suffer with a whole bunch of speculation by a bunch of people who don't have any more facts than I do. For years we have had to get snippets of info from the synod and most of our facts from victims of corruption. If these hierarchs are so worthy to be called master then why do they hide so much from us. Here is something else I believe(for all of you conspiracy freaks), Metropolitan Jonah may not care if all of the bishops in the OCA have a diocese if the America churches unite, and this may make them uncomfortable. By the way Mark, follow your own advice. If you have proof of something to explain your innuendos about +Jonah then be specific, for a change.

(Editor's note: The Metropolitan has, on multiple ocassions, both with the Synod, and with the MC, as well as with others, spoken of the need to "redefine" autocephaly in the form of "maximal autonomy" so as to encourage Constantinople to give the OCA " a seat at the table" - to use the Metropolitan's expression - meaning at both the Episcopal Assembly, and at the projected Council of Orthodox Churches supposed to be held in the next few years.... This is not something I made up; but a sincere conviction of the MEtropolitan that unity in America requires this. I think it fair to say most people in the various governing bodies of the OCA, given that no unity is envisioned in America beyond increasing cooperation among the existing jurisdictions for the foreseeable future, and perhaps unlikely ever, since any unity would require the renunciation of 15 Churches of their American dioceses. And no one, not one person, thinks the EP would then make that united church autocephalous. Against this dream there is a reality of an autocephalous Church in America, which unites several previous jurisdictions - called the OCA. To abandon the bird in the hand for two in the bush is imprudent - especially when no one can tell you what kind of bush it is, or what kind of birds, or where both may be found. )

During their retreat, His Beatitude presented a request to the Holy Synod for a time of personal retreat and spiritual renewal. The Holy Synod granted His Beatitude’s request for a period of 60 days.

You seem to insinuate His Beatitude was, essentially, 'fired' by the Synod. Reading the statement, I see no indication of that being the case; in fact I read the opposite. I read that His Beatitude asked for a reprieve from some of his responsibilities and his request was granted and responsibilities covered.

Fr. Garklavs is one of the real good guys. To see him leave is PROFOUNDLY terrible. The decision to have him leave should be reversed immediately. Please keep Dahulich out of Syosset. He had no clue what was going on at St. Tikhon's or turned a blind eye for years. Don't give him any more responsibility and keep him away from any form of power!

Why not consider other arguments, or possibilities. Perhaps Bp. Michael was afraid, cowed by the old guard, by threats from the leadership.

(Editor'snote: As you will. But oh my, threats? I do not know Bishop Michael personally, having met only once, under inauspicious circumstances, but he doesn't seem at first glance as the kind of man who is easily "cowed".)

I have to call this wrong - Bp. Michael sought accreditation, which required an audited financial statement. All of the shennanigans, such as the Mortgage, were on the Monastery and their bookstore/museum. Then-Fr. Michael did not become a monk at the Monastery until just before his elevation to the Episcopacy. I believe His Grace actually saved the Seminary by pulling it out of the mix.

Go watch or read *The Caine Mutiny*. The good guys are not those who plot against their skipper because they don't like his management style or respect all his decisions.

(Editor's note: Friend, are you on drugs? Or have you never watched the movie? In fact, the good guys were the ones who plotted against the skipper, even as risk of themselves, and who were vindicated , during the court martial, when it became clear the Captain (Humphrey Bogart) was nuts. The real bad guy was Fred McMurray, who egged them on, but when push came to shove, was a coward only interested in his career. Watch the movie again.)

Mark, you are Fred McMurray. That's why you side with the mutineers. The U.S. Navy uses The Caine Mutiny to teach a lesson about command authority, and the lesson isn't, "Be like Van Johnson."

(Editor's note: LOL! What then? Be like Humphrey Bogart, that is, nuts? Seriously, if you have to be a person in that situation the person to be is Van Johnson who risks everything to save his ship and crew from the poor judgement of a lying, disingenous, dangerous Capitain. But then maybe your point is "Obedience to the Fuerhrer in all things because he is the Fuehrer?" Been there. Done that. Ended badly. I suggest everybody watch the movie for yourself and decide the moral, if not the command, implications of making decisions in times of emergencies.)

The time has now arrived in the Church when bishops will no longer be elected for life. They will be elected to "serve" and they will be evaluated periodically to see if they indeed "serve" the people or something else. As long as they can lead and "serve" the people, they should continue in their role. When not, returned to the laos. This is how the Church has originally understood the role of Bishops & priests.

(Editor's note: I assume by that you mean " leading and serving" the people, not "being returned to the laos". I am not aware of any time in Church history when a bishop was returned to the laos except for canonical misconduct. It is more often the practice to remove them from authority through retirement or resignation.)

I know I risk being pedantic, but if one starts to throw Greek terms around, a certain level of exactness is called for. One becomes one of the laos of the Church by Baptism and Chrismation. One has to be "of the laos" to be ordained. Ordination does not "remove" one from the laos in the first place. One can not return a bishop to the laos, because by definition, he has to be one of the laos to be a bishop in the first place.

What I have written is demonstrably the "original" understanding, and it is also the constant and continuing understanding of the Church. Demanding a "return" to ***hypothetical*** "original" understandings is absolutely alien to Orthodoxy, especially if the "original" understanding is as unlikely as this one.

It evident that the death row criminals are running the asylum. The real concept of CHURCH has lost. The OCA is the laughing stock of the Orthodox world and now just a corporation. Where is the forgiveness? Where is the love? Where is the concept of charity? LOST!!!!!!!! How does one enter into the season of Great Lent with this calamity going on at the level where conduct should be exemplified? It's really a shame. Stop the judgment. Stop inflicting pain. Think before you speak.

(Editor's note: So far this week in postings from the DOS, I have been called a "pornographer", "ungodly", and now a "death row inmate". Sheesh, I am beginning to think some people don't like me down south....)

Thank you, Anonymous, for clarifying for me what's really at stake here. You want a democratic church governed by the will of the people, so the people can decide for themselves who their leaders are, and if they don't like the ones they choose, they can choose others until they find some who please them. No thank you.

Really, what has +Jonah done that is worthy of deposition according to the canons? So far, the only complaint raised against him is that he has decided some things for himself and some people don't like the resulting decisions.

I don't mind your reporting the news, but you have put a spin on the events which I believe to be deliberate, and as a fact, pre-planned. You used far too many words in your release, words slanted to put the metropolitan in a bad light. To top it all off, you always have the last word and you seem defensive to me. As to the Metropolitan, God Grant Him Many Years. He is a good man. And while you are at it, I am entirely sick of your vendetta against Fr Joseph Fester. By your reckoning Jesus Christ could be portrayed as an irrational man who didn't take advice from those who surrounded him, and as one who was out to detroy the temple. Fr John Hennies

(Editor's note: Thanks for the criticism, although I am not sure how I could "pre-plan" what the Synod decided. They will have the last word. And I have no vendetta against Fr. Fester. But the SIC committee reported to the Synod and Council that he should have no further positions of authority in the OCA, and voila, there he is, promoted to Dean of the Cathedral in Dallas, and voila, promoted to chancellor of the South, and voila, now Dean of the Cathedral in DC. I would be remiss if I did not point that out, whatever one may personally think of Fr. Joe.

BTW: I have never made any disparaging comments about him as a person, nor his pastoral ministry, nor his leadership skills, so I am not sure how thaat qualifies as a "vendetta".
Neither have I said that the Metropolitan is not "a good man". I do not make those judgements, but simply report actions. )

FRK's loyaltists still think they can keep chipping away and fool the unsuspecting. Forget it guys. Get another job. The rest of us have to work for a living. Stop thinking the great unwashed OCA parishioner is going to continue to pay you to horse around. We have your number and will not tire of calling you out. We used to trust you, but no more. Trust is earned. You don't earn it by sophistry.

Thank you once again Mark for actually telling pretty much the whole story (which, sorry to say, is not what is reported in the official propaganda release from the OCA). I am deeply saddened by the "resignation" of Fr. Alexander Garklavs and the "period of spiritual renewal for +Jonah."

In my opinion the Holy Synod made an enormous blunder. Fr. Garklavs wasn't perfect but he worked extremely hard at his job. Any organization with at least some brains would have worked out an orderly plan, but not the good ol' boys in funny hats. What a tragicomedy!

The Chancellor sits on virtually every committee. He is deeply involved in all matters of clergy in every diocese. He presides at the chapel of St. Sergius. He essentially runs the chancery. With just the secretary and a part-time Treasurer, the OCA is further diminished.

Maybe they had to get rid of Fr Garklavs, maybe they didn't. But to just basically throw the man out with no real plan for an orderly transition is just plain bone-headed.

And what about all the information you shared about the illustrious wonder, +Jonah, first hierarch of the New Moscow in Washington, DC? It sure does appear that birds of a feather flock together. If the Holy Synod actually backed him instead of Fr. Garklavs, they really need their heads examined. Metropolitan Jonah was a nice abbott of a nice small monastery. This is where he belongs, not as the head of the OCA.

Another amusing question is if Metropolitan Jonah does step down, which of the illustrious bishops could succeed him? There are some slim pickings in the OCA for a new metropolitan. Boy, what a mess!

"Slim pickings"indeed ! The Good Lord has solved that problem for the O.C.A. by sending you the martyr Bishop Mark of Baltimore administrator of the DOS.He was saved from +Philip after going to "hell and back" and showed his ability to be a true man of God and a most worthy Bishop .....I know the man and his heart and would serve under him at any time anywhere.Former O.C.A. priest.

Nice to see how the Holy Synod thanked Fr. Alexander Garklavs for all of his service the last three years. Profoundly grateful weren't they. With thanks like that who needs enemies.

So what happens to all of the special investigations? What happens to all of the legal matters Fr. Alexander was tied up with?

The Holy Synod really blew this one. They fired the guy telling the truth and give the one who can't actually do the job a 60 day holiday. Gee, I wonder if he'll use the time to go back to Moscow and practice his Russian again. The next thing we'll learn is that good old Bobby K. is back as a priest. And they didn't have the courage to admit what they had done. The press release is a joke and so is this synod.

I don't understand what happened to Fr. Garklavas. It says he was "informed" of his resignation? That is not a resignation but a termination. I thought the Synod and Met Council were the only ones who can remove an officer of the church? So did they do this? They terminated Fr. G and put Jonah on a leave? I am confused. Can someone clarify for me please.

Unfortunately Anonymous, all Fr. Alexander did was factually bring to the attention of the Holy Synod what had been transpiring.

This notion of blind obedience has got to stop in the OCA.

I give Fr. Alexander credit along with his fellow committee members for stating the facts and bringing them to the attention of the Holy Synod.

Things were apparently dysfunctional and in need of immediate attention and repair.

How does bringing this ineptitude to the attention of the Holy Synod warrant such action against a good man and wonderful priest such as Fr. Alexander, while Robert Kondratick still wears a cassok and is allowed to continue in a position of authority in an OCA parish and Fr. Fester continues to climb the ladder? How is this possible?

Is this fair? Why hasn't the Holy Synod addressed this issue with the Metropolitan and INSIST that this be dealt with once and for all, as Locum Tenens of the Diocese of the South?

Is the Synod ever accountable to anyone? Isn't this a double standard? Does this inaction show leadership or sound judgement? Doesn't it bother our bishops that world Orthodoxy is looking at them with a microscope?

I'm tired of the same old answer, "It's his Diocese and we can't do anything about it".

Hogwash! It's God's Church and the bishop is priviledged to serve and care for the Diocese he has been entrusted with.
Doesn't anyone care about how awesome this responsibility is anymore?

Does this kind of behavior and lack of leadership warrant blind obedience?? Was Father Alexander Garklavs supposed to just sit back and allow this kind of behavior to continue? Since when is it a crime to speak the truth?

Is this truly what God wants of us? I think not.

I have been a member of the OCA for 50 years. I can honestly say that I am ASHAMED of what we have become.

I beg and plead that our Holy Synod will finally hear our plea to do the right thing.

Good question. What, indeed, has +Jonah done to warrant dismissal? Notice that no one has given you an answer.

Much of this is just hysteria, fueled by a mix of fears -- fear that the thieves who stole money and got booted out will come back into power, fear that the OCA will lose its autocephaly to foreigners in Moscow, fear that those foreigners will crack down on the OCA's pro-gay, pro-feminist Old Guard, and fear that +Jonah himself will divide the OCA between conservatives and liberals by speaking out against abortion, gay rights, and other fashionable sins.

The furor really says more about the OCA than about +Jonah himself. In the interest of preserving the status quo, we have for decades avoided dealing with the issues that divide us. Now they're forcing themselves to the surface, thanks to a somewhat naive monk who is truly surprised that his simple faith would cause such a scandal.

(Editor's note: You have got to be kidding me. Is that how you see this? A naive monk with simple faith causing scandal because of his opinions regarding gays, feminism, and fear? OMG. Friend, if you could point me to one pro-feminist Orthodox Bishop, old or new Guard, I would like to see it, just as I would a five legged cat. I don't believe it exists. As for pro-gay, well, not a one exists either, because the ones that are gay are so closeted you can smell the mothballs. In my experience they are usually the ones most condemnatory of homosexuals. As for the Old Guard - who would that be? There's no one old left in the administration of the OCA. Heck, +tikhon is the second-senior Bishop and he is what, 50? As for the reasons +Jonah was placed on leave, I think the Bishop's explained it as much as they feel is appropriate. He needs a medical/ spiritual evaluation, and a prolonged time of rest. Most of us would jump at the opportunity to get 60 days leave with pay. He claims its a "coup", and dashes hither and yon, creating fear and confusion here and in Russia. You tell me: is what a normal, rational, adult person in a responsible leadership position would do? )

This web site uses every rhetorical tool in the book in order to advance its own agenda while claiming to report the 'news.' It spins the news in such a way that anyone who is not thinking critically will buy the site's leaning in view no questions asked. The style of reporting is akin to the style used by many conservative radio talk show hosts! This report is full of ad hominem attacks and always avoids the real issue - politics in the church. It is the traditionalists vs. the modernists. The site and its supporters look for every loop hole in order to avoid really considering the opposite.

The way this article is written spins it to look like the Metropolitan was forced a leave-of-absence on him, when it was he himself who requested it from the Holy Synod. The author consistently builds straw men, "poisons the well," presents ad hominem inconsistencies, perfectionist fallacies, misplaces the burden of proof, begs the question, uses argument from outrage, pity, envy, scare tactics, group think, rationalization and the rest!

It is shameful to use these methods in reporting because it does a disservice to the readership. Do the readers realize that they are being manipulated and persuaded by underhanded techniques? They are having a point of view forced upon them if they do not discard any argument that uses a rhetorical devise to persuade or manipulate.

It is possible that the author doesn't realize that these tactics don't engage any real issue or provide a real reason for the arguments presented. For example: the Metropolitan's view is never presented. The fact that he is attempting to provide a new direction would conform the OCA with the rest of the Orthodox world, rather than the strange animal that has risen up in the vacuum of "American" freedom and secular business style.

Please examine both sides. Stop the rhetoric and underhanded manipulation of the masses. PEOPLE please think for yourself before coming to your own conclusions. Don't just blindly read this site and come to an opinion based on its content alone. Not that there are truths presented on this site, just that they are spun in a way to paint a certain picture and further a certain biased agenda.

(Editor's note: LOL. The Metropolitan is the one with the agenda - and he does not suffer lack of venues to push it, or lack from people or sites willing to advertise it, to the extent he wishes to share it. Secondly, please show me an adhominem attack in my article - anywhere. Not ini the comments, which I do not write, but in one of my articles. If you can, I will then apologise. If not, you should. )

Clearly, you are frustrated with "politics" in the Church. In this regard, we are in agreement! However, you have made a lot of assumptions regarding Mr. Stokoe's motives and intentions and the intellectual capacity of his readers. I'm not sure how you can confidently assume that official statements on oca.org are NOT underhanded attempts to manipulate the masses and yet the editorials here supposedly are. I'm devastated by the possibility that the OCA is still not a healthy organization at the top levels. I would like to know the truth. For me, the issue is not modernists vs. traditionalists. The issue for me is whether I can trust the leaders in the church to be who they say they are. For now, I'm getting my umbrella out (see #48), just in case of rain.

American unification? Where is its mention in all this? The Metropolitan does have an agenda that was pointed out above to which Mr. Stokoe was in disagreement calling to mind being under Muslims or forgein dignitaries. Why is there no mention of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishop of North and Central America (see Website: http://www.assemblyofbishops.org/?) The approach here is the same old ingrown OCA in a culture perhaps helped brought about by Fr. Alexander Schmemann. I love Fr. Schmemann, but there were irregularities.

No reference to anything outside of ourselves. That there may be a motive for the Metropolitan larger than himself. There is a bigger picture to which the Metropolitan is trying to lead the OCA. That is the OCA's unification with the other jurisdictions of Orthodoxy in North America as envisioned by the Asssembly, that we as an American Church may have autocephally blessed by the "Great and Holy Council" when it is is convened in 2013.

You mention that the Metropolitan has offended other churches or given the OCA a bad name. It was pointed out in a thread that in for the Pat. of Constantinople our autocephally in the first place is the greatest offense. You claim concern for accountability. Accountability is responsiblity to a larger authority, well, we are accountable to the Orthodox Church catholic and this is an opportunity for the OCA to be accountable to something greater than ourselves. You mention Metropolitan Jonah giving away the store to Moscow? Really? Moscow aside, in a sense he is planning to "give away the store" but I think he is trying to prepare for the inevitable unity of all jurisdictions in America. Is that really giving away the store at all? No. All the jurisdictions are attempting to get their houses in order so that we can all be counted and granted autocephally, whether or not that will happen in the context of our autocephally has yet to be seen. Soon we need to fish or cut bait. Metropolitan Jonah is likely gearing up to cease being Metropolitan under a wider American Orthodox Church where you will not need to worry about him any more.

I am sure someone will come up with a clever come back to minimize this issue but it is THE issue. All of us, hierarchy, and laity, will need to humble down, and man up to lay aside our own egos for the sake of the gospel and bringing the light of truth to America. Visit the site above. The things that are happening truly are amazing.

Why not report on the good news occurring in the Orthodox Church? We don't have much time to be ready. We should follow the vision the Metropolitan has for the OCA which ultimately ends with uniting all jurisdictions in North America. So the Metropolitan made mistakes in his leadership skills, better not to assume inherent wickedness but something else, for the sake of Christ. He is accountable to the Holy Synod but also to the Canonical Assembly of all the Hierarchs in North America, which includes all the members of our Synod. This is the direction we are going in America and the Metropolitan knows it. Any resistance is against the larger the American Orthodox Church not the ingrown thing we have become and still are.

We need to be encouraging our Bishops to pursue this unification with the other jurisdictions, not the divisions among ourselves. We as the laity and clergy need to ask the Synod to pursue this endeavor, even take up the mantle of spear heading it in assistance with the Secretariat of the Assembly offering to do anything we can, after all we are the Orthodox Church in America.

(Editor's note: It appears now there will be no Council in 2013 due to fundamental and significant disagreements between the Greek and Slavic (and Romanian) worlds. But let us be accurate about one thing: we all look forward to a united, autocephalous Church in America. We disagree on how to get there. The Metropolitan thinks that we can give up autocephaly and thereby assist unity. Of course, the EP has never ever said they would give autocephaly to a united American Church. They never have in the past, when they were strong, so it is hard to imagine they would now when they are fatally weak. No, the way to unity is not to abandon autocephaly not at the beginning of the process, but at the end. On the day all the other colonial churches free and unite their jurisidictions, the OCA should cap the process off by voluntarily renouncing theirs to join the new autocephalous entity. Until then, our independence is a pledge for their committment to that unity and future autocephaly.)

I'd just like to add the canons will need to be revised first. There is no way old fiefdom logic rules can prevail without Orthodoxy suffering. The idea that no boundaries can overlap would be a larger upheaval than any scandal imaginable. Entire churches would fail. A full on risk analysis by a seminarian would be a great dissertation; albeit a bit dangerous.

Metropolitan Jonah acting on something 'bigger than himself' is not a defensible position for him. His criticisms are that he acts unilaterally, without input from the Synod, I don't see how this is his charge. If things are 'bigger than himself', those would be the things he especially needs to discuss with others first.

If he thinks it is his place to discuss modifying autocephaly without a blessing of the Synod, he doesn't deserve his status. I hope he can recognize my words aren't condemnation, I can forgive, but he mustn't continue down this path which seems taken without a terminal consequence.

This 60 day leave of absence is exactly the time until Pascha. I'm glad that these is the issues, two radically different views of how things should be run. Not embezzlement, sexual immorality, abuse.... I can see some of the Metropolitans points and agree with them and understand and agree with the Chancellors views.

I am not so quick to give up on this metropolitan (despite being cautious at the start), he is young, inexperienced, idealistic, perhaps he might emerge refreshed and stronger after this forced break.

I have to admit, I find his frankness and take on everything attitude refreshing(even when it gets many into trouble). Hopefully this is resolved, and personally the bridges burnt can be rebuilt. If God can take fisherman and make them Apostles, he can allow the Metropolitan to become the Shepard he is supposed to be. I see the potential we can be but we are so far from their yet. I have to admit that I found the Seraphim thing shaking as a last straw. And I cant trust in man any more. I have given up trying to see away out, I need to be led through the cool dry dark desert.

The statement (where beter off now than 5 years ago) sounds like your in la la land !or everyone is smoking pot! 25 percent of church members. Have left the church! Mt council has destroyed the unity of the church! Ask this question? How much money has been spent on legal fees? What good is the mc (mt council) they are the cause of many lawsuits being filed today! Peoples reputation destroyed by both this website and the mt council.please state the facts! Not gossip! Remember this website told people stop contributing money! Well we have stop!!!! In fact! The persons directing the church! Today! Mc council! Have misguided church members with gossip! What will you and others tell the good lord! Everyone who was affiliated with Mt Herman we destroyed their name and reputation!! Are you and others christians? You can't be orthodox!

About the only thing you have said that is accurate, or at least arguable, is that the OCA is no better off today, or even worse off, than it was five years ago. But to blame this website for the OCA's woes, and the other critics of our "exalted leaders" and their shenanigans, is pure unadulterated bunk.

So why, despite the mountains of information revealing the corruption and all the personnel changes that have followed, haven't things changed for the better? Two big reasons--hierarchical intransigence and people like you who think it is more important to be some type of super orthodox Orthodox rather than Christian. Believe me, our Lord would and does understand this line of reasoning, if the Gospels are to be believed.

As a frequent visitor to Santa Fe (my in-laws live there), I can say that La Fonda is one of (if not the) most expensive hotels in a town full of many expensive hotels and restaurants.

It seems extremely outlandish, especially during a time of recession, for the OCA to host a meeting of CLERGY at an extravagant, 5-star hotel--in one of the most expensive towns in the US. I mean, really?!?

Metropolitan Jonah found a nice, comfortable hotel for everyone to stay in. Clearly, this means that when he dies, he must be buried under a heavy stone in case Satan sends him back.

I suppose if the metropolitan had selected lesser facilities, that would have been cause for outrage, too. "The Synodal retreat was held in a cinderblock motel on the edge of town, between the airport runway and the rail line with freight trains going by twice per hour, featuring hourly rates and bedspreads that recalled the work of Jackson Pollock."

Maybe the metropolitan felt lesser accommodations would offend the sensibilities of the monastics-in-name-only on the Synod, unused to going with their nails unfiled or their backs unscratched. Maybe Hotel Fancypants was the only one that could accommodate them in the timeframe and place that they needed. See, if I ran a hotel, and wasn't Orthodox and therefore used to these sorts of shenanigans, I'd be a little wary of the hairy men in the pretty dresses and shiny jewelry who wanted to have a 'retreat' of some sort in my facilities.

If people are going to jump all over the metropolitan, they could at least pick actual moral failings, not irrelevant nonsense like what kind of hotel he chose for a private retreat. It's not like he held a national convention there and demanded that everyone who wanted to come to said convention pay for accommodations there. Ahem.

(editor's note: I refuse to enter this debate because the MC is held in a " a cinderblock motel on the edge of town," between two highways, "featuring bedspreads that recalled the work of Jackson Pollock" . The actual meetings are held in a windowless, basement room of that same hotel, despite pleas that we move. I have been to La Fonda as well. And I admit, I am jealous.)

I'm not sure about "most expensive". I just went to their site and it seems their lowest priced room is just over $100. Granted, prices go up to over $300 but most hotels have a large range. Some of these posts remarking about the venue imply this is some super-expensive place but it doesn't appear to be.

So, does the Holy Synod authorize you to speak for them? What gives you the right to take their private meeting and publicize it on the Internet? And, how do we know you carry no agenda? Your report comes across as a "hit piece" against Metropolitan Jonah. Your report is extremely negative about him. Nothing good is said. Is he really that bad? Or, are you highlighting every negative thing you can because you do not like him? Obviously, you want him out and are presenting everything you can to support your position. There may be some real disputes in the hierarchy but you seem to want to fan these flames to achieve your desire to see Metropolitan Jonah gone. Can we trust your report? I'd say that based on the fact that it presents a one-sided viewpoint, we cannot.

(Editor's note: I understand your concern about the discrepencies between what I reported, based on my sources, and what later appeared on OCA.org. I stand behind my sources and the facts I reported. My goal is not to inflame, but to inform. If becoming informed enflames, well, it tells you something.)

Dear Anonymous #43 (alas, there are so many of you here!)
Who do you suppose Mark would 'pick' for Metropolitan, if he won that lottery? can you name another name yourself?

I have been in the OCA since 1987 and I can't come up with anyone who is 'worthy' or has the 'expertise' or who is even adequate for the job, and I have met many people in the church who are good, kindly, not given to anger, etc etc.

Thak you for continuing to report transparently. This is another truly unfortunate event in what has become a long line of travesties committed upon the Orthodox faithful and their church.

The OCA has quite a bit of good and righteous spiritual leaders in their parishes, and while this would seem the norm for the OCA, my take is they are just choosing from the wrong pool. I would think croneyism or looking for "our" guy may be closer to the truth. I myself had been distanced from a former spirtual father over a disagreement, but time heals all wounds and today I continue to highly recommend him and his parish to anyone I come across.

Married bishops? I am a traditionalist. Why change what has worked since the beginning of time?? It is time for the OCA to look within and pray for guidance and renewal for a way out of these choppy waters. Theodosius and Herman rocked this organization to its core, but I knew there was trouble once again last Memorial Day when Herman was serving at St. Tikons. To liken this to the TV show survivor, the tribe had spoken and passed judgement on his actions. To bring him back to concelebrate was nothing short of a slap in the face to the OCA faithful in attendance that day.

I am not sure what the answer here is, but I pray, and suggest everyone prays that decisions are made that will ensure the overall stability and restore the trust and place of honor for the OCA, before autocephaly is compromised and the OCA is forced to partner for its survival.

Uh, hello...married bishops ARE part of the tradition of the Orthodox Church, since the beginning of the Church. Going to monks & celibates was only done for "practical measures." Monks were educated (libraries were in monasteries); the laws made the progeny of bishops the inheritors of church property and nepotism was an issue. These are not issues today. Married men are more psychologically stable and understand family issues more clearly. It's really past time to return to this norm!

In my opinion:
A qualified bishop has been/is married (or widower, not divorced), faithful and has raised children with his wife. His wife is a witness who can attest to his worthiness, and his children are living proof of his spiritual maturity. His priesthood in a parish will have refined him like fire, because parishes are snake pits full of sick sinners, many of whom put their priests on pedestals and crucify them weekly. If you can get through that and keep your wife and raise healthy kids, keep your sanity and your faith, then you can be a bishop, in my opinion.

I think Archibishop JOB (of blessed memory), whom I consider to be a saint, was an exceptional bishop.

I have hope for bishop-elect Matthias (widower), and Nikon (widower) as men who have lived real lives. Let the monks stay in the monasteries and pray. As for the rest of the Church, could we have some real men please?

Jesus said: "You shall know a tree by its fruit".

Thank God we Christians can continue to do God's work, practice true religion (as St. James put it), regardless of the sick hierarchy.

So keep working, people of the Church, you don't know the day or hour when the Master is going to return.

In the conversation about un/married bishops, we need to remember that it has NOT been the practice "from the beginning of time" for them to be unmarried. It may well be time to revisit the topic, in a sane way. This is a "t" tradition, not Tradition. There are just way too many assumptions out there about why we could not have married bishops. And we should be able, at least in theory, to have that discussion without the jerk-knee reactions. But I don't think we are grown up enough yet for it to happen.

The Metropolitan is not on a Leave of Absence. The OCA press release, if he was on an official Leave of Absence would have said that His Beatitude requested a Leave of Absence. It does not say that.

What it does say that he was granted time of a "personal retreat and spiritual renewal. The Holy Synod granted His Beatitude’s request for a period of 60 days." That is not an official Leave of Absence. He can return at any time in any capacity of work that he chooses on or before 60 days because it is not a Leave of Absence.

With regards to Ab Nathaniel, if His Beatitude was granted an official Leave of Absence, he would have been officially named Temporary Administrator of the OCA. He was not. It states that he will "assist in the temporary administration of the OCA during His Beatitude’s retreat." That does not make him the Temporary Administrator (note that capital T and capital A make it an official pronouncement.

Now, this may seem like a lot of "inside baseball" to some, but it is very important to those, especially other Churches, reading the official website of the Orthodox Church in America. They can decode what is actually said and what is not and that is important.

So, to review, His Beatitude will be on "personal retreat and spiritual renewal." He will continue to be the Metropolitan and will continue to represent the Church as Primate but he is cutting back his many duties so that he may retreat and renew for a period of time.

The only drama in all of this is the bad reporting done by the owner of this website which caused the confusion. You got punk'd.

(Editor's note: Thank you for offering a decoding of Bishop-speak. It speaks to the issues of transparency and accountability, and the notion that words are important. As for being punk'd, I agree someone has been, but I am not convinced it was me. I fear it has been the OCA. Time will tell. )

I cut and pasted the following from Archbishop Nathaniel's listing next to his photo under "Holy Synod of Bishops and Episcopacy " on the official OCA website this morning, 3/1. So in your view the capital "T" and "A" do "make it an official pronouncement"? So the Metropolitan is indeed officially on leave of absence?

I think caution and vigilance are more important now than ever for all who value the OCA. It seems to me the Holy Synod has tried to rein in the Metropolitan, and he and his inner circle are in the process of making an end run around the Holy Synod's attempts at discipline. The laity needs to be paying careful attention; I pray the Synod is doing that, and more.

I think that vigilance is more necessary now than ever before for those who love the OCA. It looks to me like the Holy Synod tried to rein in the Metropolitan, and the Metropolitan and his inner circle are now in the process of making an end run around that attempted discipline. The laity needs to be paying close attention to what is said and done. I pray the Holy Synod is doing that, and more.

Mark, I wasn't referring to Bishop Tikhon's post about the "mandatory leave", I was referring to his publication of an email you wrote to your friends on the Metropolitan Council.

Mark, were you sleeping during your canon law class at SVS? You don't get to dump a bishop unless he has fallen into some grievous moral failing or has started teaching heresy. Forcing him out of office for anything less than that is a shameful attempt to use technicalities to interfere with your God-given leadership.

In church history people have done this many times, sure, but only if you want to be featured in a synaxarion reading in the far future, as one of the bad guys.

I plead with all of you - Mark, and your Metropolitan Council lobby - to stop this insanity. There's got to be a better way to work this out than making yet another fifty-something retired bishop.

Editor's note: Wow, you are incredible. First he did nothing, Then he did something but it was a misunderstanding. Then he didn't mean what he said. Now it doesn't matter what he said, did, or denied, you can't touch him, because he is a bishop and the canons protect their bad behaviour.

No, they don't. The canons, like the US constitution, are not suicide pacts. There is a thing called conciliarity - I was awake on those days - which Synod's express based on mutual obedience and accountability.

Sadly, obedience can't work with someone who lies. Until, of course, they stop lying. Since we not anywhere near that point "working things out" seems a little pointless, don't you think?

As I said, keep going with the excuses and justifications for wilful disobedience from a man who has spent the last years preaching that eveyone must "abandon their will". Everyone else that is. Right.

But keep going, friend, its fascinating in a sort of moral and ethical train wreck sort of way...)

I read through Mark's comments and the official oca.org posting. +Jonah, "pesented a request to the Holy Synod for a time of personal retreat and spiritual renewal."

It is good the OCA has several checks and balances of our our statutes, the Metropolitan Council, the Ethics committee, and the Synod. It appears that these checks and balances were getting properly utilized.

Let us look at the positives in this situation with such checks and balances working for the good of the church.

I pray that +Jonah has an honest, hard working, and uplifting personal retreat of spiritual renewal. Done right before Pascha. For the checks and balances built into the OCA will not go away.

I don't see anything wrong in asking for a time of personal retreat and spiritual renewal at the beginning of the Great Lent. And to some of the people who posted here: please, remember at least basic decency when you speak of our bishop. Here is Apostolic Canon #55: If any of the clergy insult the bishop, let him be deposed, for "thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people" (Acts 23:5). Should not we, the lay people, be mindful of this as well?

I respect the work you have done in the past. Really, I know you have worked round the clock at times in the past to bring facts to light. That said, I also know this site gets tremendous amounts of action when there is a scandal; however, with this story you sound more like an umbrella salesmen fortcasting a thunderstorm on a slightly clouded day. I'll reserve judgement, but right now it sems far less scandaless than you have made it sound.

(Editor's note: That is perhaps the nicest criticism I have ever received. But let me repeat: that booming sound in the distance ain't artillery. Its a thunderstorm on its way....)

Inside sources confirm that +Jonah resisted taking leave and had to accept “an offer he couldn’t refuse.” The synodal statement does not openly reflect what truly took place but was probably written as such to allow "wiggle room" since there is no certain predetermined path.

I must say though, having been present at the Pittsburgh AAC, the sick feeling in my stomach upon the announcement of +Jonah’s election sadly has since proved to be more than emotional disappointment. “To succeed in chaining the multitude, you must seem to wear the same fetters.” A speech does not a leader/metropolitan make.

The removal of Father Garklavs is a most regrettable action, to scapegoat him because of the indiscretions, inexperience and obduracy of the metropolitan. It is foolish for the synod to think removing the chancellor will take the heat off the metropolitan when in fact it’s going to turn the heat up. Unless of course, that’s their byzantine intent!

For those thinking the worst of the OCA consider what is going on in the other American jurisdictions. The patriarch and synod in Damascus acted opposite the OCA synod, morally, ethically, ecclesiologically and canonically. The patriarch in Istanbul treats America as his colonial subjects. The Ukrainians, Serbians, Russians, non- OCA Bulgarians/Macedonians & Romanians are all digressing into their ethnic worlds. Hence, in spite of all her self-inflicted trauma, the autocephaly of the OCA is the best hope for Orthodoxy in North America.
PS. The intent and objectives of Chambesy are not motivated toward the good of the North American Church. “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.”

If the news reported here is accurate, and given the track record of this site, I must assume that it is, then the news is sad indeed.

From the day of his election I've been a strong supporter of HB Metropolitan Jonah, and I tend to agree with a good bit of his thinking in principle if not in degree. I'm not opposed to his attempts at closer ties the MP. I'm not opposed to a more autocratic style of episcopacy…but conciliarity is the check on it to keep it honest and honorable, and it's proper exercise can't be written off as congregationalism. Though it seemed natural that along the way, being yet a young bishop he would make a few mistakes I had hoped, God willing, he would learn from them and mature into a strong, wise, and godly leader for the OCA.

But there is enough here in this report to given even someone like me serious pause, and I wonder what now? When the sixty days are up does he return as our Hierarch, go back to being the Bishop of the DoS, "retire" and return to a monastery, something else?

I do agree with Mark though, I think whatever comes the OCA is stronger. I could not image the scenario that just played out going like that under a former Metropolitan. There is more openness, more transparency, more good people in the right places…and that good did happen under HB Metropolitan Jonah by in large.

I still think he has the potential for making a good hierarch, given time, and I still believe He was God's choice for us when elected. But I am also aware anyone of us can make a muddle of what God gives us if we are not careful, and what we have been given, if misused can after a time be passed on to other more faithful, better suited stewards.

All in all, I don't know what to think about this beyond "Lord have mercy on us all." It is just sad to read.

It's hard to imagine that the head of an autocephalous Orthodox Church would handle matters between himself and his chancellor in such a pathetic manner.

The Church should have meant more to Metropolitan Jonah than to feel that he was somehow stabbed in the back. Rather than flying back to New York and cutting off Fr. Alexander's email account, he could have called Fr. Alexander and arranged for a mediator. For the money and enormous loss of history and corporate knowledge that will go along with Fr. Garklavs, they could have hired a psychologist or a counselor to try and work through their differences.

As far as I know, Fr. Garklavs did not embezzle any funds. He showed up for work every day. He did what was required of him such as sort out the mess from Proskauer Rose during the initial days of his employment. He was the lead person in the Kondratick matter. He helped to orchestrate the removal of Metropolitan Herman. He helped pull together the last AAC. He helped to keep all of the committees and departments of the OCA running for the past three years. He worked tirelessly on numerous personnel changes and other investigations caused by an enormous lack of leadership at the top. He essentially helped keep the doors and lights of the OCA open for the past three years and helped to maintain a proper cycle of services at the chancery. When no one else seemed to care anymore about the history at Syosset, he practically single-handedly fought on. Frankly he took the job at a time when almost no one in his right mind would have. Talk about taking lemons and making lemonade.

And this is his thanks? He didn't even get the courtesy of a two week notice.

Is it just too much to ask for a better explanation? I understand personnel matters but either the Holy Synod was incredibly heartless or Fr. Garklavs really did do something that warranted immediate termination. Given what his predecessor did to the OCA, it's hard to imagine what would have risen to such a degree. If it was truly over just the report on Metropolitan Jonah, God has his work cut out for him when it comes to leading the OCA.

There are many things in doubt, but why should all the benefit of doubt go to Garklavs? He may not have committed any crime, but neither has the Metropolitan, and even in Mark's anti-Jonah account, Garklavs secretly plotted against the Metropolitan.

Garklavs has actively opposed much of what the Metropolitan has been trying to do for the past two years, including moving the chancery to Washington and speaking out of major moral issues. That alone will get you fired in most organizations. It just won't do to have the CEO and the COO at odds with each other.

If Garklavs was really that much out of sympathy with the Metropolitan, the only honorable thing for him to do was resign. Of course, it would have looked a whole lot more honorable if he hadn't attempted a coup first (Mark's account, again).

(Editor's note: I never said Garklavs was plotting a coup against +Jonah - +Jonah said Garklavs was plotting a coup against him. And no, the Chancellor is not an appointment from the Metropolitan - he is an officer of the Church and a Synodal appointment. The CEO and COO can disagree, and have to way to work together. In this case, it seems the Synod fired both of them, although they did one in an orderly fashion, although he seems to be acting out; while the other they did in a disorderly manner, although he is continuing to assist in every possible way his "interim" replacement. That tells me a great deal about each man, and who is "loyal", and who is not. But feel free to disagree.)

I know everything changes from one minute to another, so let me just say that as of yesterday, Monday, the news is that Fr. Garklav, who lives on Long Island, has a home there, has a wife in that home, has not only been given the heave-ho by the OCA, but has been ordered, by the Metropolitan, to be attached to the cathedral, in Washington D.C!!! No salary and a five hour trip from home. What kind of sleazy action is this?

(Editor's note: No one expects him to go to DC. It is a canonical device. Fr. Garklavs was attached to St. Seraphim's Chapel in Syosset, where, in fact, many clergy awaiting assignment are temporarily attached. As he is being moved from Syosset, according to +Jonah, +Jonah attached him to his cathedral in DC temporarily instead. He does not expect, nor desire, for him to serve there. You can relax on that point. What is disturbing is that he was given the heave-ho. But that story is not over....)

Well, obviously, Mark, Fr. Garklavs is not going to serve in Washington, DC. But just the act of attaching him there gives a negative impression on several counts...high-handed, arbitrary, and a further insult after the dismissal. Anyway, that is the way it strikes me.

Amusingly, the OCA website is generally a week or two behind the rest of the world when it comes to information, but Fr. Garklav's information has already been taken down and +Melchisedek's has been put up. Such amazing efficiency.

How convenient it is that +Melchisedek's diocese was so well run that he was able to step into the role in a matter of hours. It's so well run I guess that he now has the time to just pick up and move to New York. And is that the plan? Is he, indeed, going to be sitting at the desk, picking up the mail, answering the phone and emails like the former chancellor? Or is this just window dressing and everything is going to pile up for the next person pick up? Let me guess, given that +Melchisekek's email account is not an oca.org account, he is probably going to be sitting in his house in Pittsburgh. Great help this is going to be at the chancery. God help Fr. Eric in the mean time.

By the way, did anyone notice that almost none of the bishops on the Holy Synod have even ten years of experience? Other than +Nathaniel and +Nikon, none of the bishops has made it to the ten year mark. How's that episcopacy thing working out?

It was nice to see the transparency and accountability in the latest OCA antics as well. So if +Jonah does step aside in 60 days what happens next? +Nathaniel is the highest ranking bishop so he would be the front runner for next guy to wear a white hat. But seriously, he probably won't get it because of the Romanian connection. +Nikon has serious health issues. The next person on the list is +Benjamin. Given that he might be under investigation (based upon the allegations of a former bishop) does this mean +Tikhon of the East is the next great hope to wear a white hat?

What is most surprising is that the Metropolitan Council has not stepped in. All joking aside, the Holy Synod continues to prove that they can not manage a church. They need competent leadership, and the way in which they just handled the Fr. Garklavs situation was not competent. Maybe the bishops need to remove themselves entirely from any functions related to finance and administration and leave it to a lay board. Hire a competent CEO and let that individual lead. This sounds pretty draconian but the reality is that the bishops have no training, experience, or expertise in finance or administration. If they did, they sure as heck wouldn't have pulled this latest stunt without some care for the history and knowledge they just threw out the window.

Frankly, as a member of the OCA I'm quite upset. The holy synod is showing itself to be a group of incompetent fools who are running the OCA into the ground. I for one would like to see whoever is the highest priest or lay person on the metropolitan council call for an immediate meeting and call the bishops to task for pulling this stunt with no backup plan. They just lost three years of corporate information and threw it out the window with absolutely no plan for how to fix it. In the corporate world, this would be a terminable offense. There was no reason the bishops couldn't have waited until the AAC to release Fr. Garklavs and it would have given them plenty of time to come up with a legitimate plan. Just assigning a bishop to be the chancellor and sticking his home email account on the web site is not a plan folks, it's called lipstick on a pig. What an enormous blunder!!

(Editor's note: The MC is discussing these matters. As for the rest of your criticisms, well, the only reponse you can give to the truth is assent. And for those who find referring to bishops as incompetent fools disrespectful, one must remember the writer surely meant this in love, as in "only a fool would agree to carry that cross". As for incompetent, well, as the blessed Forest Gump said: " Incompetent is and incompetent does...")

Look, everyone, + Jonah is just the WRONG person to lead the OCA. He doesn't believe in the OCA nor it's mission. This is clear from his own statements. The OCA has a vacuum in leadership. NONE of the personages of the Synod are real leaders. Where are they? Why do we always turn over every rock to find some celibate or monk to lead when they have no clue? Why aren't we looking for the BEST leaders - married or celibate? The Synod itself should step up to lead and the Met. Council must step up to lead. Where is the OCA's "Council of Archpriests" who can add sanity to where the OCA is going? AND, beware the Ides of March and Chambesy!!!

For the record, when +Herman traveled, he traveled in style, riding in a big black SUV or limo and staying in very nice hotels. Not +Jonah. When he picks things himself, he picks with appropriate modesty.

I asked at the announcement of the location that I wondered why a hotel at an airport was not sufficient. How about all the monasteries we have available? They all have guest houses. Perhaps, like in Toronto, they have a bill that has yet to be paid !

If the Metropolitan is on " spiritual retreat", why is he posing for photo ops with visiting clergy to the US? Why is Zaccheus here on a visit at the personal invitation of +Jonah according to Facebook?

Facebook has a vidoe posting of the +Jonah's address in DC announcing his "60 day plan". There is also an interesting posting taken during t the Vigil last Saurday in DC. All the clergy are looking at the floor. No happy faces there.

I have also wondered as others have about the speed that Fr. Garklavs was " informed of his resignation". The Synod has reminded me of the swimmers that plop into the pool of caramel in a new commercial I just saw on TV !

Is there something in the rite of being made a Metropolitan Archbishop that infects the candidate with some sort of strange virus? Not just a Middle Eastern illness is it?

At least the OCA has a real and functioning Synod so congrats on that. It would be far easier for the Libyan's to give Qaddafi a time out than it would for the Antiochian local synod to send it's Metropolitan on a little reflective retreat.

Folks, as an outsider despite declarations to the contrary from both sides, as I read about this situation I don't get a feel for truth anywhere. It's not that people are purposely lying, it is just that the truth has yet to be revealed.

What I do see: Clashing agendas, lack of trust, and most of all a Cool Hand Luke moment: "What we have here is a failure to communicate" a real failure to communicate.

Clearly something is quite wrong, but it is not just Met. Jonah, nor the Synod, nor the MC, nor any other single person or entity within the Church. Neither is the problem limited to the OCA.

In general, the best characterization I can put on it is that "we all like sheep have gone astray, each one to his own way" Self-will rules through out. Distrust rules. Antagonism rules.

Unless we return to a focus on Jesus Christ and Him crucified, the troubles will continue. Unfortunately, I fail to see Him anywhere in this mess.

Whatever the reality is, what is happening right now is wrong. Lent is coming: Forgiveness Sunday followed by prayer, fasting and repentance. That is the solution. Not power politics, backroom deals and character assassinations. If is a problem, and clearly there are many, they exist because I have not submitted sufficiently to the love of Christ. All need to repent

"O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, meddling, lust of power and idle talk; but give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love to thy servant.

Yea O Lord and King, grant me to see my own sins and not to judge my brother, for thou art blessed unto ages of ages. Amen"

Anyone who can make such comments about the 1917 Council and the restoration movement of which it was the culmination, which is the basis of the OCA Statute, and God willing, in time, the future healing of world Orthodoxy, does not deserve to hold office under that Statute. Anyone willing to renounce autocephaly is unworthy to hold office under that Statute. Anyone who is capable of saying that the agenda of the Church should be the primate's personal agenda denies the Gospel.

"And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth."

"Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

We'd be out of bishops pretty fast if we expected any of the current crop in any jurisidiction to behave in the manner you suggest. I can think of 2 out of the 65 who attended the EA. There may be more but the list is short.

I'd rather have a bad and corrupt bishop than no bishop at all. I'd rather have a bad and corrupt bishop rather than a bishop who is a eunuch to the laity rather than to Christ.

Obedience, real obedience, is a stuggle at all times. It doesn't really count if we agree with the direction does it? That's just self-will.

I know in all of the coversations over the last several years, I have become profoundly uneasy, that we don't really want bishops. If we do, we want bishops without a hierarchy (there's an oxymoron). We want to control the vertical, we want to control the horizontal rather than focusing on Christ.

It would be smart to look into who was in the "small group" that was in the background engineering this. Come November, will one of them be nominated to take Metropolitan Jonah's place? If the OCA really wanted reforms, why did they take in clergy from other jurisdictions with questionable pasts? Then , they elevate them without reservation! Well known information regarding "issues" circulated in their former dioceses and were made known to some who had influence in the OCA. The laity should ask themselves why there is no despair in other jurisdictions when these "talented" clergy leave their former Dioceses.

(Editor's note: That "small group" would be the Synod. Only they have the authority - and responsibility - to hold the Primate accountable to the point of removing him from office, should things come to that. This is not my "agenda" or "congregationalism" - those are the words of Metropolitan Jonah who oft stated that it was his job to hold the Synod accountable; and the job of the Synod to hold him so. Secondly, as for receiving clerics from other jurisdictions to become bishops, the only one in recent memory was Fr. Moriak, who participated in a open, transparent and lengthy process and was subsequently nominated by the Diocese he has now been elected to lead. If there was any "information" about him as you so snarkily infer, no one, not one person, bothered to raise it in the six months of the search process. I know, I was there. As for Bishop Mark, who recently joined the OCA, trust me, after the bitter battle in the AOCNA that preceeded his departure on principles, if there was any "information" that could have been used against him, it would have been. The worst his maligners could throw against him is that he asked for audits in his parishes, had the termerity to insist the Archdiocese be audited, and refused to bow down to what he felt was an invalid, uncanonical command, to the point of chucking his career up to that point.. God give us more men like that, friend. And one hopes, personally, that in the near future, the Diocese of the South will consider him in an open, transparent and accountable process for their next bishop. And then choose the best candidate they can, whomever that may be according to their delegates experience.)

So two questions: Monks at Santa Fe Spas, Monks at roof top dining for birthday parties... Is this the future of Orthodox monasticism in America? And secondly, isn't it wonderful that it appears the former Metropolitan has recovered from his "illnesses" that prevented him from assisting the various investigations of the past 15 years enough to enjoy a pre-Lenten night on the town?
-------------------------------

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PRLog (Press Release) – Mar 01, 2011 – Chicago, IL — February 25, 2011 — Dr. Dame Evangeline Gouletas honored the Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Zacchaues, Diplomatic Representative to the Orthodox Church of All the Russias from the Orthodox Church of America, by hosting a cocktail reception to celebrate his 40th birthday at her upscale restaurant, Cité Elegant Dinning at the Top of Lake Point Tower, in Chicago, on Thursday, February 24.

The VIP guest list included dignitaries such as His Beatitude, Metropolitan Theodosios, Primate Emeritus of the Orthodox Church in America; Archbishop and Primate, The Most Rev'd Dr. Robert D. Parlotz, FOHS, Archbishop and Primate of the United Anglican Church; H.R.H. Princess Elisabeth zu Ysenburg und Büdingen, Royal Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem; Brigadier General (Rt.) Patrick Rea, Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem; Khaled Elkhatib, Deputy Director, Mayor’s Office of International Relations, City of Chicago; Count Alexander Reventlow, a descendant of Saint Elizabeth and German Nobleman, and many-many others.

Cité Elegant Dining at The Top of Lake Point Tower is a dazzling haute cuisine establishment offering Chef Oscar Ornelas exceptional French American cuisine with stunning culinary creations. It offers unobstructed wrap-around views of Chicago’s skyline and Lake Michigan, seventy stories above ground at The Top of Lake Point Tower. It fuses the wealth of international culinary and interior design sophistication of its owner, Evangeline Gouletas, who is also a real estate legend, a visionary entrepreneur, an educator and mentor, a passionate philanthropist and a Former First Lady of New York State.

The former Mr. Wood from CT (Zacchaeus) never finished any theological education prior to ordination. Mysteriously, he was put in place in Moscow by Theodosius & RSK. To legitimize himself, he literally bought an advanced theological degree in Russia which amounts to an a Sunday School understanding of Orthodoxy, pre-1917 Russian Revolution style...

Judge not until you have walked in +Jonahs shoes. I can't believe the
gossip and pettiness of some of the comments. This is Christian? Do
you really know the reasons behind the changes in Syosset?Re Fr G
being two faced -agreeing on one hand and backstabbing on the other.
Re Syosett - Relieving the OCA of the burden of $18,000 a month to
operate sounds realistic to me. I note the same people write the some
of the comments all the time. Seems like they like stirring things up and
generate a lot of negative attitudes. It takes leadership to face all of the
problems with action to keep the OCA strong when many people won't
recognize realities.

Wow. I am not sure that a person could sit down and write a novel so grand as to what has happened in and to the OCA these past years. With utmost respect, and to bring levity to the shame, perhaps we as a church can sell the movie rights to repay debt and provide financial assistance.

In seriousness, though, is this not what St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil and others wrote about when they criticized the bishops of their own day centuries upon centuries ago?

Most disturbing is the resurfacing of Fr. Kondradik's old crew and the sexual allegations report. Money and sex go hand and hand. Why should it be any different in the church (as hypocritical as it is)?

Thank you so much Mark for your strength, honesty and objectivity in continuing to inform us and allow us to conduct our own due diligence.

May our collective prayer this Great Lent be not to lose faith but trust in God and that through these tests and pains of His English speaking church a new one may be born amidst our Paschal celebration.

Thank you.

(Editor's note: Let me make this clear: the "resurfacing of Kondratick's old crew" as you say, and the "sexual allegations report" are not connected in any way, in this instance. Please do not infer they are.)

I revisited this Ancient Faith Radio interview with Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko when Metropolitan Jonah was elected in 2008.
http://ancientfaith.com/specials/episode/fr._thomas_hopko_reacts_to_new_metropolitan

There was great optimism expressed. What happened along the way and why in such a short period of time?

The Devil is hard at work trying to destroy the Church, as he has been for millennia. One need only see the latest news from Syosett and Englewood, and some of the vitriol spewed in these comments, to see the fruits of the Devil's efforts. We should all spend more time praying for the Church and her bishops and priests, and less time engaging in scandalous talk.

The attempt to return the OCA to an Imperial Orthodoxy was bound to be tragic. There is a balance between hyper-clericalism and congregationalism, and it should have been a priority to find that balance. The bishop's first duty is to teach and lead, not to reign and rule. There is a point at which the defence of the faith might rest on the hierarchy, but there is also a point at which it rests on the faithful in general. We saw that after the Council of Florence. Perhaps the worst of the problems was the attempt to place Holy Order of MANS/CSB sectarians in control of as much of the OCA as possible. That remains a danger that the faithful should take cognizance of.

The CSB connection is something that isn't talked about enough. Would you consider writing more for us about this? I think more need to hear about this aspect of Metropolitan Jonah. For the health of the Church in general we need more information.

I know that many are bewildered by recent news of actions by the Holy Synod of the OCA and by information published (A) on the website of the OCA (oca.org) and (B) on the website of Mark Stokoe (ocanews.org). Perhaps insight can be afforded by a look at strategic planning by some of those involved in bringing the reported actions about.

For example, in one of a series of emails on or about February thirteenth (13th), more than a week before the Holy Synod went on its "retreat", Mr. MS wrote to those with him in the cabal, Subdeacon DS, Fr. JR, Ms. FS. Fr. TB, Mr. GN:
"That report was given to the +Tikhon, the secretary of the Holy Synod, last Thursday, who gave it to the Synod-- but not Jonah since it was about him. Danilchik sent a email to the Synod saying that they should watch how Jonah responds to the criticisms: in a thoughtful, reflective manner, or with denial and retaliation. 3. The Synod then decided that Jonah too should see it. It was given to him on Thursday nite in Dallas. He went ballistic. Jonah dropped Alfayev (sic), with whom he was in Dallas for another performance of the Passion, and flew to Syosset. (Alfayev (sic) later had to call Behr (?) at SVS and ask "What is happening?" I doubt Behr (?) knew...) He told Garklavs and Tosi that they were both fired and had the new OCA webmaster shut down their OCA computers and emails. He went to Bronxville to speak with Dahulich (sic), and the following morning the two went to Syosset. I do not know if they met Garklavs and Tosi on Friday. 4. Meanwhile the Synod was trying to organize a conference call to discuss the matter, but was unable to organize even their way out of a paper bag because of the problems in Syosset. Four bishops (Nikon, BB, Mel, Tikhon)(SIC) want Jonah removed; Nathaniel is upset but undecided, Dahulich (SIC) the wild card. The three administrators, Irenee, Mark, Moriak (SIC) are being informed, but are out of the decision loop.) The conference is difficult again to organize given everybody's schedules, and the fact that +BB is now in PR with his dad on vacation on a cruise ship..
"However the emerging consensus of the appalled four, seems to be that Jonah should be placed on a Leave of Absence immediately, and left there while an Administrator takes over in the interim until after the AAC. (A la Ireney Bekish (sic), who had an administrator for four years....) They do not want to retire him now, because that would trigger the Statute, which would require an election at the AAC, and none of them want that. So he would be ordered by the Synod to a monastery---probably Santa Fe is the only option really possible --and ordered to stay there. (Personal note: Of course he can't stay in one spot for three weeks, let alone 9 months, and should he leave, he could be retired immediately for synodal disobedience.) The ;point is he has to be removed, and this avoids the immediate problem till after the AAC. They would take turns being administrator for six months each.
...
"5. So that is where the war (SIC) stands as far as I know on Sunday afternoon. The Synod is taking the stand Garklavs and Tosi are still in place. Jonah has frozen them out. I don't know what they think. I hope to hear the latest this evening as I check with sources.
"My thoughts over the over the past six weeks of turmoil have been not to publicize any of this as it is technically, actually and really a Synodal problem---and involving the MC (Metropolitan Council) and people would only muddy the waters at this point. They are, so far, acting by Statute. Should they fail to remove him, as the SMC case is appalling, then all bets are off, and I plan to make it all known, at least as far as I know it. But for now, I think it best that you know what is going on, but ask you to keep quiet until the Synod acts--or fails to. In the latter case, we must then decide how to proceed together as one lobby in the MC. I am loathe to share this with the entire MC, because then it will get out to the Church at large, and there is no telling what will happen then---but none of that would be good for the OCA.
"I also fear if the SCM report is made public it could/might/possibly hurt us legally---bwdik?.......We are at the tipping point."

OrthodoxList members, here's the cast of characters for those unfamiliar with OCA acronyms and "honorifics":

I confess that I found the sentiments of an instance famed for his advocacy of "transparency" and "accountability" as expressed in his last paragraphs to be rather remarkably piquant... a voluntary unmasking. It also looks like a trap has been planned for Metropolitan Jonah which would snap shut the very (planned) moment he would be unable to sit still!

Ad hoc, acanonical actions, all presumably based on the ethics of Sacred American Corporate Business Culture.
Rarely has such an example of "conciliarity in action" been seen....probably not since Moses came down off the mountain to find his people dancing around the Golden Calf....truly a conciliar resistance to unAmerican, despotic, imperial, monarchic, etc. evil.

I only printed here ONE of a chain of emails contributed by all the addressees....only one from the instance most noisily accountable and transparent.
+Tikhon
Bishop. OCA. Retired

PS Don't be shocked by the lack of reference to God or anything remotely connected to Scripture or Tradition in the above email excerpt...that's the "name of the game." These are Church leaders, VIPs in today's OCA. They're not "religious." What an idea!!!

God is not mocked.

(Editor's note: The above is truly a part of an email exchange between several members of the Metropolitan Council which was obtained and published on the Indiana list by the former Bishop of Los Angeles, Tikhon. Only my words are reprinted.
He characterizes it as "strategic planning", I would call it sharing information with colleagues about a serious and developing situation, which as we can see, has become worse. As for his complaints about "openess and transparency", the Bishop is toying with me. First he complains when I publish stories, now he is complaining that I did not? Well, in fact, I did share 95% of this information with readers on OCANews.org the day the latest crisis broke. Thus, this hardly rises to the level of "Tikhi-leaks".

To have published all this before Santa Fe would have been premature and unhelpful to the Synod, as I explain in the note - the decision was, and is, the Synod's to make, not the MC's. Ah, yes, friends, another clear example of rampant "Congregationalism!".

Yes, I certainly do speculate as to possible options before the bishops as to how they could handle the issue before them should they decide to discipline the Metropolitan. Obviously, they did not listen to me because nothing I suggested was done. So much for my being involved in "those bringing these actions about" ....

And as for my comment that the "Metropolitan must be removed", I doubt that opinion is a surprise to anyone but +Tikhon, if he had but read my posting in January entitled "The More Things Change" I think my displeasure with +Jonah's conduct and leadership was on full display a full month before this email. Quel surprise.

Finally, I fully accept the Bishop's criticisms that God is not mentioned, nor Jesus Christ, in this particular email. Unlike the Bishop, whose writings are so well known I need not cite any, I am not one to savage, ridicule, mock and berate someone, and then have the termerity to sign that hateful attempt " Love in Christ" or " Love, BT", as does the former Bishop.

The former Bishop says "God will not be mocked". In that, we can fully agree. )

People, would it make any difference to anybody, or change anything in anyone's mind, to read the actual words spoken by a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and the actual words spoken by the Metropolitan a few days later? I found them helpful. I don't like the feeling I'm being manipulated, so I did a simple google or two.
Please read the Ecumenical Patriarch's statements here:

"Challenges of Orthodoxy in America And the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate"

Let us all pray particularly for Father Garklavs and his is family, whom I know from a long time back.
If ever there was a thankless, yet incredibly important job, his was. He took the heat for doing it well, for speaking truth to power on behalf of the victims of clerical sexual abuse, when it certainly would have been easier to quietly accede to the demands of megomaniacal hierarchs. We, the faithful of the OCA, owe him a profound debt to gratitude. Let us pray that our Lord will give him resilience and allow him to land on his feet, stronger for this undoubtedly very trying experience, and continuing to serve the Church.

Don't spread rumors. Rumors are evil and have their source in the Devil himself. The Metropolitan has clarified what is going on in a message to St. Nicholas Cathedral. It is available as a "Note" on the Cathedral's facebook page. Here is a (reduced) URL for that note: http://on.fb.me/dN2fCt.

Jumping to conclusions and spreading rumors of things which you do not truly know about. Get all the information first, and get it from the source, then provide information. This is the sensible way of doing things, and the Christian way of doing things.

Be Christian and do all things in love, not in sensationalism.

And, if I am wrong in my perception of things here, my brothers and sister, in love, forgive me, a sinner.

Why, O why, do I -- as a member of the (Arch)Diocese of Washington since 1994 -- have to read a letter from my diocesan hierarch not on the diocesan web page on the OCA web site (http://www.oca.org/CAdioceseWA.asp?SID=8) or the official diocesan web site (http://wdcoca.org/) but a Facebook posting for a particular parish?

How can I get the information I need to make an informed decision regarding the current situation when important information is buried (on purpose or through neglect?)in obscure locations that prevents its discovery? There are two (2) perfectly good web sites, sitting unused since they were created, that are more appropriate for disseminating important information to the members of the diocese than parish Facebook pages. And His Beatitude wonders why there is a growing "congregationalism" among the laity? Insensitivity, ineptitude, ands incompetence seem to be endemic in many of the actions of the OCA hierarchy.

I am an OCA Orthodox convert of 2 years interested in truth and transparency. Fr Joseph once recommended to me that adult laypersons assume responsibility for independent thinking and decision-making. To that end, my questions.

I am confused by disparate descriptions of your website by Orthodox. On one side are Orthodox lay and clergy I admire who describe it as (1) an important avenue of conveying information privately or publicly as well as gleaning information, (2) an important checks and balance system to the human foibles of clergy and organizations at work, and/or (3) very effective in the work it has done on the financial scandal. (Recently, for example, Fr Seraphim Holland (ROCOR), whom I admire very much, posted on Mystagogy that your site deserves respect for its reporting on the financial scandal, reporting which I understand from many Orthodox led to the new accountability and transparency policies advocated by His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah.) On the other side are at least two clergy, one who has reportedly described it as “pornographic” and another who definitely described it yesterday as “not godly” and who urged Orthodox in a former parish not to view the site at all. To my knowledge neither man has written by name to object openly/refute specific material to the site itself however.

This is all very confusing to a layperson and new convert who longs to become wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove rather than avoidant as an ostrich or inflamed as a banshee. May I ask you a few questions which would help me evaluate your site as a source of information and try to understand any agendas at work. Please moderate my questions by writing me before publication IF you are offended by the way in which I ask the questions; I am glad to revise out the offense in tone and style while retaining the content – as many drafts as that takes.

YOUR SITE

1. Do you as Editor ever reject outright and simply not publish (or severely edit) the comments posted by authors opposed to your personal views? (I understand style editing or .... for civility) Ditto for pointed questions about your policy or process?

2. If the answers to #1 are that all Orthodox issues and respectful authors are posted, may I assume that if folks such as Fr John Reeves and other MCers and clergy comment here by name and if the forum is open to comments from all, that other clergy should feel free to disagree with you by name if you are misrepresenting a situation, them, or their positions? Are you correctable? Do you acknowledge mistakes? Do you retaliate? Does some one say you do retaliate? If so, what specific evidence can you and they give? Confirmed named persons to answer please.

3. On what factual, researchable, historical basis is your site accurately described as either an unreliable or a reliable but malignant source of content (in contrast to style) by some? Confirmed named persons to answer please.

.4. Your position on the M.C. seems to carry a conflict of interest. How often does your position on the M.C. stop you from introducing on the website, much less commenting on, a subject discussed at the MC? Have you figured a way around this, such as asking a colleague to ask you about it so at least a discussion may begin? What are the ethics and conflict of interest in being on the M.C. and yet publishing this site as sole editor? Does your service on the MC actually hurt the flow of knowledge on the website in your opinion? Have you ever thought you were asked to join/elected (ignorant, sorry) to restrain your publishing? Do you ever post anonymously to get around this?

5. Are the email postings of a Lee Fitzgerald regarding Met Jonah, yourself and a number of others in February actually the postings of the former Bishop Tikhon of the OCA ? Are the quoted emails and material authentic? If so to any degree, can you please enlighten us about your role and participation, unless that would damage another person?

6. Other sites claim that the timing of the Synodal changes (just before Lent) are due to the major concern that OCA autocephaly is about to be rescinded by the MP/Centre (not sure of the lingo). Is this true to any extent?

7. The publication at all of such private background material seems unnecessary, harmful and frankly indefensible unless it was forced by unexpected public revelations by others of a sensitive issue which the Synod tried to handle with pastoral concern and discretion. Is this true to any extent?

8. Would it be possible for you to specify when you have participated in an event and are reporting on it and when you are quoting senior sources so to speak? It is confusing when you report as if you are there.

9. Would you consider specifying whether your anonymous source and each anonymous commenter is a new convert/old hand lay person, reader, subdn, priest, or "something higher" and what “branch” (OCA, Antiochian, etc.) so that some sense of the person's experience and influences might help us evaluate the input?

SMC Report

1. Will the SMC report now often described actually be made public in its entirety (in the form given to the Metropolitan)? If so, where and when?

Thanks ahead of time for any clarifications or new info which will help me focus on Lent and pray more accurately. I am of course praying for all concerned and for healing of each person, the entire situation and the OCA. I ask your prayers please.

The OCA needs to return to its true Orthodox roots in order to do away with all that has gone wrong within the past decade and beyond. What do I mean by that? Return to the Mother Church. Old calendar and all! Generations have been lost and they do not know what being Orthodox really is. Being in the OCA is no better than being Byzantine Catholic anymore. What has gone wrong? God help us!

(Editor's note: Being Orthodox is really the Old Calendar? Has anyone told the Greeks or Arabs, or Czechs or Finns, or .... Sorry, I disagree. Generations were lost not because of a calendar change, but more likely because they couldn't understand a word of long service they couldn't see being conducted behind a closed door by a man who insisted they follow complex rules they did not understand, nor could anyone explain them, apart from the fact being a Christian is just hard, and more likely than not, if you live like a Christian you end up with sore cheeks from having turned them so much; poor, for having shared with the poor; and of no import, for you will be humble. Not a very attractive goal to many in today's world, Orthodox or not.

The enforcement (or lack thereof) of the Sexual Misconduct Guidelines enforcement appears to be a big part of +Jonah's troubles.

The recent indictment of Msgr. Lynn in Philadelphia should be of interest:
http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-11/news/28350473_1_grand-jury-report-barbara-dorris-three-other-priests .

The ultimate target is Cardinal Bevilacqua, but Msgr. Lynn, Bevilacqua's aide who wasresponsible for clergy assignment, is being indicted precisely for ignoring bad behavior, shuffling errant clergy around into parishes where they could do more harm.

Apparently, this is the first time this particular tack -- of prosecuting those who did the shuffling around and covered up abuse rather than just the abusers -- has been taken.

We should consider ourselves as having been put on notice that similar behavior on our part leaves us exposed to prosecution.

Since the long and well constructed time line of events and the conculsion reached here differ greatly from Met. Jonah's explanation, I can only say the authority of the bishop and his veracity is being questioned here.

As I said in a previous post which has not yet been allowed to surface: I see nothing of Christ in this situation, nothing of the Truth. I see agendas, backbiting Byzantine politics and character assassination.

And I know Mark, "you stand by your reporting", but in this case I genuinely question your agenda and suspect an undisclosed bias in what you have written.

Certainly the unhidden glee of some of the posters is unseemly and wrong.

"All we like sheep have gone astray, everyone to his own way"

Let us enter the fast in true humility my bothers and sisters.

Personally, I'd rather have a bad, corrupt bishop than no bishop at all. If any here really don't want bishops or want bishops that answer to the laity in all things (as some posts seem to suggest)--you are in the wrong communion.

(Editor's note: My agenda has never been a secret. The site is called "Orthodox Christians for Accountability". I do not expect Bishops to "answer to the laity in all things". I expect them to follow the Statute, to be accountable to the policies and proceedures the Synod has established, and to be transparent as possible so as to engender trust in all their decisions.

(Editor's note: Thanks for the concern. But what I can publish will only enlighten the drama; it will not resolve it. I have reported what I have; the Metropolitan has offered his statement. It is now for the Synod to weigh in.)

I understand you are a member of the Metropolitan Council. I was wondering if you could comment on how your role in the MC might affect your reporting? I am unfamiliar with the duties and functioning of the MC and what member do and I figured it might be best to go to the horse's mouth. If you have explained it elsewhere, please direct me to the relevant page on which you disclose your thoughts on the matter.

Since +Jonah is the chairman of the Council and you are a member, ostensibly in a supporting role of the Metropolitan, I am unclear what sort of conflicting interests may be present in your reporting due to your position. In the interest of appropriately interpreting your reporting, it would be helpful for you to fully disclose any benefits or perceived conflicts of interests that may arise from your reporting. Again, if you have disclosed this before, please provide a link so I may read it.

Thanks!
ASP

(Editor's note: The duty of the MC is not to support the Metropolitan. We owe a duty of loyalty , care and obedience to the Church - not any single individual. In this case, as the OCA is governed by a Statute, the Church is described there as its foundational documents to which we must adhere, its governing bodies ( the Synod first, the AAC, the MC, etc.) , its dioceses, etc. There is no conflict in my agreeing, or disagreeing with the Metropolitan on issues, as I am not there on the MC to represent him; but to share with him, and the other members, the concerns of my Diocese, which elected me as their lay representative. For that job I was blessed by my bishop. So, no, in that there is no conflict of interest. I hope that helps.)

Instead of slanting your story to create a more sensational headline it would be nice to be factual and say "Granted leave" instead of "placed on leave" which implies that the leave of absence was not +Met Jonah's choice.

Requested and given a leave of absence is very different from "placed on leave" as you state.

Check back in 60 days indeed. Until then a little less innuendo would serve everybody well.

(Editor's note: And Metropolitan Herman was granted his wish for retirement. Bishop Nikolai was granted his wish for retirement as well. Metropolitan Jonah requested a leave. And Fr. Garklavs, to his surprise,learned his request to resign was accepted as well. As you say. Its all there in the press releases....

I would really like to know more about the resignation of Fr. Alexander Garklavs. The former priest Robert Kondratick was kicked out because he was accused of stealing huge amounts of money. Basically it was a "pack up your stuff and get out of here" for Kondratick. It seems that Fr. Garklavs was given the same treatment. One guy was a crook and ripped off the OCA, the other guy ....?

If Fr. Garklavs did something that was unethical, immoral, or illegal, why not at least say something to that effect? If he didn't, the treatment by the bishops in the OCA is unconscionable.

> If Fr. Garklavs did something that was unethical,
> immoral, or illegal, why not at least say something
> to that effect? If he didn't, the treatment by the
> bishops in the OCA is unconscionable.

Listen hard enough and you can hear a lot of opinions on a lot of things. Probably each member of the OCA has a distinct opinion on all of this ... so that's, what?, perhaps 20,000 opinions floating around?

On Fr. Garklavs's performance as an administrator, among my limited acquaintances, I've heard everything from he was too autocratic, to he was too soft, to he was simply perfect.

BUT ... among a range of people who are quite capable of arguing whether the sky is blue, I've heard no one, NO ONE, even whisper that Fr. Alexander is anything other than ethical, moral, and completely dedicated to f fulfilling his legal and fiduciary responsibilities.

If anything in how this unfolding mess has been handled and mishandled is leading anyone to infer otherwise, then there's one more item to add to the growing list of things for which certain persons should feel shame.

His Beatitude himself has spoken on this issue, in a sermon on Sunday which was posted to the Internet by the Diocese of Washington.

http://vimeo.com/20435460

According to His Beatitude, he was not "forced" into a leave of absence, and he seems to be directly rebutting the allegations made on this site concerning what happened. His Beatitude also seems to become visibly emotional at the end of the sermon - I cannot say that I blame him one bit.

Only the Synod and His Beatitude truly know what happened in Santa Fe, of course, unless one of them decides to share their version of events with this site. One thing is clear to me, though. We in the OCA spend too much time criticizing and scrutinizing the actions of our hierarchs and priests. Sometimes that is needed, of course - the administrations of +Theodosius and +Herman made that clear. I am not suggesting we turn a blind eye to anything,. But it would be nice if we spent as much time praying for our hierarchs and priests and for the health and welfare of God's Church.

Contrast the Metropolitan's tone, body language, etc., in this vimeo with a talk or sermon he has given in different circumstances--where he is saying something because he really wants to say it. There is a huge difference, folks! Please don't ignore the "pink elephant" in the room. It's so very obvious to me that the Metropolitan is upset in this vimeo and that his heart is not in what he is having to say. It appears very insincere. Perhaps there is at least a small comfort in seeing that the Metropolitan seems not at all comfortable being insincere. SMALL comfort that is . . . Pray for the man, and all involved, for he, and we, surely need it! Lord, have mercy!

"It seemed good to us and to the Holy Spirit..." (Acts 15:28a) With these words the apostles, presbyters and brothers, meeting in the first "official council" closed their letter to the Gentile churches. The Church has since its foundations been a conciliar fellowship. St. Ignatius of Antioch in one of his epistles states that nothing is to be done without the bishop but that likewise the bishop is to nothing without the church. I know that Orthodox Church has a long and I will dare say "checkered" past where many times the Scriptural and Patristic roots have been forgotten and the spirit of Byzantium, Imperial Russia and the Turkish Yoke have prevailed. This aught not be brethren and friends. The simplicity of the Apostolic and Patristic Church of Jesus Christ has become encrusted with the jewels of this world and spirit of the Gentiles where leaders want to lord it over others they feel somehow or another are inferior to them. We must be reminded that every Baptized and Chrismated Orthodox man, woman and child are Baptized and Sealed with the Spirit and are therefore the prophetic voices of that same Holy Spirit in the Church.

In America we have become INFECTED with clericalISM and hierarchicalISM. The Clergy, both Bishops and Presbyters are not above or below but alongside and are servants of the Laos (People) of God. We have over the past decades seen the results of this dreadful infection. Hierarchs and Priests living immoral lives and shearing the sheep for their own personal profit. This is an abomination to the Lord! We are not a congregational church, neither are we a presbyterian church, NEITHER are we an episcopal church. Rather we are a CONCILIAR Church in which we all, as temples of the Holy Spirit, fulfill the ministry that has been entrusted to us, in the spirit of our Good Shepherd, Lord and Humble Servant, Jesus Christ who said very clearly, "If you want to be great in God's Kingdom, you must be the servant of all."

May all of us, Metropolitan Jonah, the Synod of the Bishops of the OCA, the Presbyters, Deacons and People of God all be servants of one another and therefore fulfill the Law of Christ.

This is precisely what Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, of blessed memory, used to teach. But you all need to remember what the Moscow Patriarchate did to his Diocese after his death. The persons primarily responsible for this were Bishop Hilarion (now Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokhalamsk) and Metropolitan (now Patriach) Kirill. Aren't these very same people now major players in the problems you have with Metropolitan Jonah?

Look too at the global issues. The Russian State has more or less swallowed up the Russian Orthodox Church. Why did the Head of the Synodal Information Service of the Moscow Patriarchate last week have to issue a statement saying that "the Russian Church is not about to merge with the Russian State"? (It's on Interfax-Religion). He then went on to say that "The Russian Church has never been so independent of the State as it is now". In England we have a phrase to reply to this, and it's "Tell that to the Marines". And curiously, this statement appeared in the middle of the Inter-Orthodox Hierarchs' meeting at Chambesy. One wonders - why? Why then?

The Russian Government would sure love to have the OCA in its grasp and a ready-made network of parishes and "units" throughout the USA. Don't forget that Anna Chapman was not just a glamorous sexy young lady, she was a spy, working with others, who had tunnelled themselves into insignificant positions in the USA but in fact were very dangerous to your country's interests. In Paris, Moscow is building a grand "Orthodox Centre" with a new Cathedral on Quai Branly opposite the Eiffel Tower and the French Secret Service is reported to be deeply concerned that it will be used for nefarious purposes as the building is close to the official residence of the President of the Republic and major Government Ministries. (There was a lengthy article about this last June in Le Nouvel Observateur).

Patrairch Kirill is fully signed up to the "Russian World" project of Vladimir Putin which is a purely secular initiative aimed at promoting Russian "values" throughout the world. Coming from a State which is basically ruled by gangsters and has no concept of the rule of law, this is all somewhat rich and indigestible for people in democratic and open societies. It's very reminiscent of Lenin's idea that the Soviet Union would export the communist revolution to every other country - which was done largely through compliant and malleable labour organisations, trade unions and leftist political parties. Now the Church is being abused in the same way, with the active connivance of those who are at the top.

Beware! There is a global agenda here and you ignore it at your peril.

I agree, keep +Michael Dahulick out of any decision-making. It’s sad that he was made a bishop in light of his inaction to abuses (including sex abuse) at St. Tikhon.
What about +Benjamin, who is clearly not in control of himself personally? Hope everyone has read the +Nikolai letter that was made public....
Now we get to +Nathaniel, who is being sued by one of his priests who has not received an assignment because he blew the whistle on a married priest in +Nathaniel's diocese who was involved in sexual misconduct. You figure!
Look at the track record of OCA bishops, Met. Theodosius, Met. Herman, +Nikolai. Now +Seraphim is charged with molesting little boys and is facing trial.
What can I even say about the retired cyber-bishop of the West?
Politics is not going to solve the OCA's problems. The corruption is so deep and it goes all the way to the top.
It’s particularly ugly when these bishops start turning on themselves.

Wow, Cappy! It might be easier and less time-consuming if you leave instead. Then you can start your own church, with only perfect people allowed to run it.

(Editor's note: You misperceive Cappy's point. She is not complaining that perfect people are not running the Church. She just thinks those who are accused of sexual misconduct should be investigated by it in a timely and professional manner, and the results made known so parents can make informed judgements with the children and adults can feel safe as well. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Or wrong?)

No, Mark, I don't think the point of "They all need to go, EVERY last one of them," is so difficult to grasp at all.

And my question is, if the existing hierarchy is so intolerably depraved, why not just leave?

(Editor's note: Because the Lord has the words of life - to whom else should one go? to paraphrase. And no, I don't think you should tear down everybody, and every law, in the Church in a witchhunt akin to spiritual McCarthyism so as to root out all the evil in it. Because having done that, when the devil turns on you, where will you hide - all the laws in the Church having been broken, and all the people you dislike having been destroyed? )

I think we're making the same point, Mark: that as many mistakes as they make, they're still our bishops, they are still Christians, they still have apostolic succession, and we can at least try to act like grownups and reason with them.

My point earlier was that if all bishops in the OCA were as depraved as Cappy believes, maybe it'd be a little easier and more consistent to just leave. She made no mention of a "designated survivor", and it's not like apostolic succession would have survived in a church where literally every single bishop in existence has been booted out of office.

Don't feel too bad, though. There's always those other fourteen autocephalous churches to go to, and unlike the OCA, they're all EP-certified to be barbarian-free.

Editor's note: LOL! Well, there is that, isn't there? Thanks, but I'm fine with the OCA, warts and all. Unlike our other 14 brethren, we have the ability, and responsibility, to solve our issues ourselves, without interference from a government, dictator, or big money. We have to deal with each other as Christians, and show the world how Christians deal with problems and disagreements; rather than going for the jugular as in the world .

So, while perusing another Orthodox website, I found the following. Is this what is called transparency Mark?

For example, in one of a series of emails on or about February thirteenth (13th), more than a week before the Holy Synod went on its "retreat", Mr. MS wrote to those with him in the cabal, Subdeacon DS, Fr. JR, Ms. FS. Fr. TB, Mr. GN:
"That report was given to the +Tikhon, the secretary of the Holy Synod, last Thursday, who gave it to the Synod-- but not Jonah since it was about him. Danilchik sent a email to the Synod saying that they should watch how Jonah responds to the criticisms: in a thoughtful, reflective manner, or with denial and retaliation. 3. The Synod then decided that Jonah too should see it. It was given to him on Thursday nite in Dallas. He went ballistic. Jonah dropped Alfayev (sic), with whom he was in Dallas for another performance of the Passion, and flew to Syosset. (Alfayev (sic) later had to call Behr (?) at SVS and ask "What is happening?" I doubt Behr (?) knew...) He told Garklavs and Tosi that they were both fired and had the new OCA webmaster shut down their OCA computers and emails. He went to Bronxville to speak with Dahulich (sic), and the following morning the two went to Syosset. I do not know if they met Garklavs and Tosi on Friday. 4. Meanwhile the Synod was trying to organize a conference call to discuss the matter, but was unable to organize even their way out of a paper bag because of the problems in Syosset. Four bishops (Nikon, BB, Mel, Tikhon)(SIC) want Jonah removed; Nathaniel is upset but undecided, Dahulich (SIC) the wild card. The three administrators, Irenee, Mark, Moriak (SIC) are being informed, but are out of the decision loop.) The conference is difficult again to organize given everybody's schedules, and the fact that +BB is now in PR with his dad on vacation on a cruise ship..
"However the emerging consensus of the appalled four, seems to be that Jonah should be placed on a Leave of Absence immediately, and left there while an Administrator takes over in the interim until after the AAC. (A la Ireney Bekish (sic), who had an administrator for four years....) They do not want to retire him now, because that would trigger the Statute, which would require an election at the AAC, and none of them want that. So he would be ordered by the Synod to a monastery---probably Santa Fe is the only option really possible --and ordered to stay there. (Personal note: Of course he can't stay in one spot for three weeks, let alone 9 months, and should he leave, he could be retired immediately for synodal disobedience.) The ;point is he has to be removed, and this avoids the immediate problem till after the AAC. They would take turns being administrator for six months each.
...
"5. So that is where the war (SIC) stands as far as I know on Sunday afternoon. The Synod is taking the stand Garklavs and Tosi are still in place. Jonah has frozen them out. I don't know what they think. I hope to hear the latest this evening as I check with sources.
"My thoughts over the over the past six weeks of turmoil have been not to publicize any of this as it is technically, actually and really a Synodal problem---and involving the MC (Metropolitan Council) and people would only muddy the waters at this point. They are, so far, acting by Statute. Should they fail to remove him, as the SMC case is appalling, then all bets are off, and I plan to make it all known, at least as far as I know it. But for now, I think it best that you know what is going on, but ask you to keep quiet until the Synod acts--or fails to. In the latter case, we must then decide how to proceed together as one lobby in the MC. I am loathe to share this with the entire MC, because then it will get out to the Church at large, and there is no telling what will happen then---but none of that would be good for the OCA.
"I also fear if the SCM report is made public it could/might/possibly hurt us legally---bwdik?.......We are at the tipping point."

OrthodoxList members, here's the cast of characters for those unfamiliar with OCA acronyms and "honorifics":

(Editor's note: Yes, Mike. This was posted earlier on this thread, and I made a comment on it then. I will only repeat two points of that comment: a) I published 90% of the above information myself the day before +Tikhon posted - so sorry, no secrets revealed. Unless of course you think Mark Stokoe writing that the Synod should be allowed to resolve its own issues on its own, is a secret? I don't. And b) what is wrong with colleagues in the MC privately discussing and speculating on options concerning a growing crisis? This hardly rises to the level of "Tikhi-leaks". )

You curse Judas because he sold his Master for a few pieces of silver, but you bless those who sell Him every day. Judas repented and hanged himself for his wrongdoing, but these priests walk proudly, dressed with beautiful robes, resplendent with shining crosses hanging over their chests. You teach your children to love Christ and at the same time you instruct them to obey those who oppose His teachings and violate His law.

The apostles of Christ were stoned to death in order to revive in you the Holy Spirit, but the monks and the priests are killing that spirit in you so they may live on your pitiful bounty. What persuades you to live such a life in this universe, full of misery and oppression? What prompts you to kneel before that horrible idol which has been erected upon the bones of your fathers? What treasure are you reserving for your posterity ?

Your souls are in the grip of the priests, and your bodies are in the closing jaws of the rulers. What thing in life can you point at and say 'this is mine!' My fellowmen, do you know the priest you fear? He is a traitor who uses the Gospel as a threat to ransom your money . . . a hypocrite wearing a cross and using it as a sword to cut your veins . . .

It's rather amusing that Metropolitan Jonah's letter to the faithful regarding his "spiritual retreat" is posted in Russian on the Moscow Patriarchate's web site and not on the OCA's website. I guess there must be more Russian speaking members in the OCA than I thought.

Thank God +Jonah says that he is "still the Metropolitan." I would sure hate to think what would happen if he wasn't. On second thought ... what would happen?

Mark,

I sure hope +Jonah hasn't blocked you from keeping your website going. Don't cave on us now! God bless you for continuing to seek the truth, even if it sometimes hurts.

Hey, anybody remember not so long ago when Met. Philip tried to extort an excommunication against Mark out of Met. Jonah? And Met. Jonah refused to do it?

:crickets:

C'mon, anybody?

(Editor's note: Well, the issue was not really excommunication, for not even +Philip could give a canonical cause for that. His goal was to have me removed from the Metropolitan Council, and +Jonah promised to deliver the threat. He did. As did others from Syosset. My answer to them was "Say, didn't Mt. Herman triy to remove Gregg Nescott? How'd that working out for you? I also pointed out that Mark Stokoe on the MC bound by the rules of Executive Session was more advantageous for their desire for less transparency, than Mark Stokoe not on the MC, free to publish absolutely anything he could get someone to talk about." That ended those discussions immediately. So while no •crickets•, I do hear •yawning•.)

Remember! When your spouse ask for a seperation! The next thing is a divorce! Mt council wants a seperation from mt jonah! What's next? Jonah is history! Or mc will force him to! That is why the church is in trouble!! People on mc are not orthodox christians! I will bet they are masons! Who have another agenda! /
BUT GOD WILL PROTECT THE CHURCH! Please print mark

(Editor's note: I am not a Mason, never have been. Nor do I know any Masons on the MC. Nor do I know an Bishops who are Masons. God knows their vestments are heavy enough so wearing more seems redundant. Moreover, I am not sure what the Masonic agenda is in your world, but in Dayton, it involves little motorcycles, a circus every year, whose proceeds go to charities, and lots of drinking, or so I am told. This is America, friend, not 18th century France, nor 19th century Russia. )

Upon listening to the Metropolitan's comments in church yesterday (which he read from a piece of paper, suggesting that they were carefully wordsmithed), I re-examined the oca.org press release and noted that the term "Leave of Absence" is carefully avoided. Is there any de facto difference between a Leave of Absence as mentioned in the OCA Statute and His Beatitude's current status? Did the Synod explicitly choose not to place him on official Leave?

You have the wrong information. There is no "Abuse of Power" in the OCA. Metropolitan is also not taking "A Leave of Absense." You need to check your facts before you post things like this. This is why the Church can never be united together because of silly, stupid rumors and scandals like this that you and others like you are showing to the public. By this, the public and the world are getting the wrong impression on the OCA and are confused. Here is the link to his sermon given on 2/27/11 explaining what is happening. http://vimeo.com/20435460

I am not in the OCA and unfamiliar of its procedures; Does this mean the OCA will be electing a new MEtropolitan this fall at its All aMeican council in washington?

(Editor's note: No, we have a Metropolitan. He is just On Leave of Absence. Until the office is vacated, there is no need for an election. That is, if he retires, or resigns, or dies, then, according to Statute, we need to have an election within 3 months. Until then, the office is filled.)

This certainly doesn't belong here, but for all you big business lovin' folks, here is something to chew on...

The Greek Orthdox Archdiocese of America is suing the New York Port Authority.

It appears the NYPA, aka Bloomberg and Co., have decided the land where St. Nicholas Cathedral sat and was destroyed on 9/11 is far too valuable even for one of the universally recognized Orthodox churches and they have forgotten GOARCH exists and won't allow them on their land.

Talk about accountability...

Let's all pray for GOARCH.

This might be one time I'd like Fox News to bring up a mosque vs cathedral story. (as much as I can't stand Fox, they might get this story right)

Ex-governor Pataki has taken a position with the church, but that is worth as much as window dressing. The only reason I'm picking on Bloomberg is because the real story is about money; the cathedral isn't going to deliver lots of revenue, and in fact is a cost burden for the city of millions. They were also considered a hurdle because the land they owned was theirs until they conveyed it.

And furthermore, Mayor Bloomberg has more political clout than any of the other governors combined, so if he really wanted to support St. Nick's, it'd be pretty easy for him to come down on the PANY and for them to respond positively.

If the church conveyed its property and gets no benefit through legal tomfoolery, I'll be one elephant in the room and I'll not forget.

I'm withholding judgement until I see how the PANY responds to the case, but how it is they won't respond to St. Nick's inquiries is disconcerting enough.

Hmm, guess my comment didn't get through yesterday although it said "commented added" or whatever (before its reviewed and possibly sensored).

Anyway just want to add to those who are not happy with Mark's spin of the story. The headline alone is very misleading, as he was not "placed on leave" he requrested and was granted a leave. Very different things, one is voluntary (request leave) the other is not (placed on leave). But I'm sure Mark has some inside information that tells him the Synod FORCED +Jonah to take a leave of absence.

Whatever the outcome I pray for the OCA, the Synod and all involved. I just think a little less sensationalizing would be a better approach. But I understand Mark has his own agenda.

Check back in 60 days indeed.

(Editor's note: Check back tonight, friend. I suggest you read the latest headline. Apparently it is not "Mark's agenda" but the Synod's.)

You know there are a lot of us who don't comb the internet or have access to all of the venues you mention who see your attitude toward the Metropolitan as being pointedly adversarial. You may have carefully avoided any ad hominem remarks in this article but I'm not sure you have done that in all your references to him. Maybe you should cite some of the info that has caused you to want our Metropolitan ousted. Otherwise you will continue to give the impression that you have a vendetta against him. I would just like to read for myself and in the proper context all of the agenda items you refer to. You say you have sources and you just report what those sources tell you. Don't you have any sources who have something good to say about +Jonah. Oh, that's right you didn't say that he wasn't a good man. My previous post disappeared too but I will include my email so if this is too inflammatory or indiscreet I still would like to discuss with you what agenda items you are referring to.
A few years ago there were a lot of comments about all of the bishops who were silent during the discovery of misappropriations and people were expressing distrust with them. Now a lot of these same gentlemen are being praised for their discernment in pushing +Jonah out. I personally am not comfortable about this mainly because the information being shared is no way an explanation for what is going on. When someone states that the press release on the OCA website is not giving the same info we are receiving here then we should not trust what they’re saying, I get worried. I know this site has continuously given a side of the story in many cases that is clearly helpful and clearly true, but in the case of Jonah many are quick to believe everything that matches their own opinions and claim that it is true. Recently (Editor's note: And then how do you explain his comment to the Diocese of the South, made before the gathering, publicly and heard by dozens that "A small group" was trying to "remove him"? Why would he say that if he was planning on asking for a Leave " for spiritual reflection"? One: This could never be used in a court of law. Two: Verifying that this actually occurred by referring to dozens of unknown persons does not lend creedence. You throw it out there as a condemnation of +Jonah when it could just as well be a condemnation of the Synod of Bishops. What gives? Do you know more that you are willing to state, because you sure are very willing to take pot shots. I have always been disappointed by our hierarchs acting like they can’t tell average people all of the facts. I get the impression we are considered too simple-minded to understand the importance of what they have to deal with. So much is left to speculation and most often leads to mistrust. Why does there have to be all of the intrigue. The health of the church is important to all of us and it would not “destroy” the church to have everyone informed. One of the best things about +Jonah is his willingness to say the things he does knowing that not everyone is going to agree with him. It seems that all of the other bishops are tight-lipped because then they appear so wise that way.

Apparently Retired Bishop Tikhon of the OCA's Diocese of the West, started the story of +JONAH's firing. See his public admission at: https://listserv.indiana.edu/cgi-bin/wa-iub.exe?A2=ind1102D&L=ORTHODOX&D=0&T=0&P=34557

(Editor's note: Sorry Al, +Jonah was not fired, but placed on Leave. And the Bishop got it wrong again. He was correct the first time.)

I don't get it. Not only do the SOB's go to SantaFe, and blow a bundle on a 3 martini retreat, but they summon Fr. Garklavs there. Couldn't they have done THAT via teleconference and save us poor bastards THAT airfare??!!!???

So, how long before Moscow revokes the Tomos and we in the OCA all suddenly find ourselves under the Patriarch?

(editor's note: Not going to happen. If you want to be under a Patriarch, there are any number of them, and one Russian, who already have parishes in the USA. They don't want the OCA, friend. We're too American. I mean, could you imagine OCANews.org in the Russian Church? Gospodi Pomilui! I probably wake up with Polonium in my veins....)

I mean, could you imagine OCANews.org in the Russian Church? Gospodi Pomilui!

Skol'ko ugodno! As many as one hardly could count. Dozens. Maybe more. BTW, they (those who run various "dissident" websites, write critical articles and publish newspapers) are still very much alive. Perhaps, Polonium does not work in Russian veins...

(Editor's note: The courage of Russian journalists is to be admired by all who believe in a free press. Good for them! And as for Polonium, sadly, it worked in one Russian's veins, didn't it?)

Ok, so now we have "the rest of the story". So apparently you were right. I think this was a bad decision by the Synod, if they believe he should have been placed on leave then do that. Instead of doing that, then trying to spin it as "he requested leave", and officially state such. While they know that to be untrue, and noted in the minutes from their meetings. It puts them in a bad light, after all the problems in the past few years within the OCA.

As far as "the agenda" I was referring to your statement that something happened (placed on leave) which contradicted the official statemen (requested/taken a leave). You must have had some information about this, but either wanted to wait for official confirmation from the OCA or something else to happen. I guess I just feel that you should report the facts, and if that disagrees with the official statement you need to supply some evidence of why you're reporting something different.

Otherwise it all looks like a slimey grocery store rag (National Enquirier) with many wild claims that seem to be untrue. I suppose by know we should just accept you at your word, since in the past you have been right most of the time (if there is smoke there is fire).

I'll eat my crow, but I still think I had a valid point. You could have simply said (in the article or comments) that "I know the OCA claims he took a leave of absence, but I have information that the Synod placed him on leave" or something like that.

(editor's note: Thanks for that. I sincerely appreciate it. However, as regards your final comment, I posted my story before the OCA posted their initial press release. My sources all told me it was to say "Leave of Absence". +Jonah changed it . How could I have known that before it happened? How could I have even known someone could do such a thing? Oh, wait, I reported on the Antiochians for two years - but that was a fax. Anyway, it still boogles my mind what just happened in public. I fear for the future if the Metropolitan cannot discipline himself more closely.)

Keep up the good work Mark; the fact that many DOSers are complaining so loudly shows that you are on the right track. The DOS has been layered with deceit and dishonor in leadership for some time now as the vultures took advantage of Abp Dmitri's infirmity and have taken over since his retirement. There are probably more ex-CSB/HOOM priests in the DOS than any other diocese. Add to that all of the RSK acolytes and you can see why the DOS is in deep trouble. + Jonah worked with the CSB\HOOM movement through 'Father Herman's' publishing business and has written an apologetic for them in the Today magazine. He was obviously hooked on the 'the bishops are destroying the church' shtick that Herman spouted and the whole search for the 'authentic' orthodoxy spiel. He also drank the CSB/HOOM kool-aid of hubris and arrogance that has led to the molestation of children at Blanco and in San Francisco. Therefore it was no surprise that he had a Greek priest defrocked for sexual misconduct at his monastery with no warning to the public. This the same misguided notion that led to the molestation of children in San Francisco. The lunacy that 'they' can take care of pedophiles and sexual abusers while subjecting everyone to an unacceptable risk. It was very unfortunate that on the stregth of one speech he was made Metropolitan. I hope that now the OCA has seen that he is unqualified and is not capable. The OCA desperately needs healing from the last round of leaders and this man is not capable and in fact is inflicting even more damage.

I think you people ought to be ashamed of yourselfs...attacking a Metropolitan like that. Whatever happened to PRAYING for church leaders instead of engaging in scandalous gossipmongering and just meanspiritedness? If you ask me, you people at Orthodox Christians for Accountability could stand to do some self-accountability

Mark - You speak of transparency ad nauseum and then I read your own words "I am loath to share (all) this with the entire Metropolitan Council because it will get out to the church at large . . . " Some transparency that is. All of those in the cabal speak of transparency but they work in darkness. I hope Forgiveness Sunday finds you all asking forgiveness from the Metropolitan you so freely slander. Fr John Hennies

(Editor's note: I slander no one Father, for the truth is not slander. Moreover, the words I wrote above were in reference to the SMCAP report and the events surrounding it, which should not have been shared with everyone, for obvious pastoral and legal reasons. As for the rest of the information I shared in that email, I did publish it - before the email you quote was published. So, go ahead, slam all you want. The facts are on my side. )

As a bit of an aside, I believe Bishop Tikhon is 44, two years younger than I. +Jonah is 51 if my math is correct.

Bishop Michael is also a widowed priest, although under significantly more tragic circumstances than most.

I looked for some "allegations" against St. Tikhon's seminary on POKROV and didn't find anything. There have been inferences here that Bishop Michael somehow covered up something or didn't investigate something, and yet I can't find it.

Deacon Marty Watt wrote, "I looked for some 'allegations' against St. Tikhon's seminary on POKROV and didn't find anything. There have been inferences here that Bishop Michael somehow covered up something or didn't investigate something, and yet I can't find it."

Pokrov.org is very cautious about what we publish. That is to say, just because something isn't on our website certainly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Mark, et. al: I have been encouraged by, educated by and supported the work of this site over the last few years.

However, this particular situation is entirely different. The comments do not ring true--none of them. This just stinks!

I fear that scape-goating is going on: the process of investing all of the fears, problems and sins of an organization on one person or a group of persons then forcing them out of the community in order to purify the community. Totally un-Christian.

If +Jonah is forced out even if all of the bad reports are absolute truth (which they are not), it will be a really bad day for the OCA and the cause of autocephally in the US.

+Jonah is not the problem--we are. How many times do we have to be presented, right before Lent, that we are suffering as a community from a great many un-Christian attitudes before we begin to realize that ALL of us need to repent deeply and submit to the love of Christ through the hierarchy of the Church (yes my brothers/sisters that love is there even in the worst of bishops). That does not mean we ignore or participate in wrong. That does mean we stop the cabal building, the ideological bear baiting and drop the hatred for our fellows, especially our clergy and hierarchs. Not one commenting here could stand up to the pressure, scrutiny and warfare that appears to be going on.

Whether Mark is slandering anyone, he knows, but there is slander being written here.

The way of Christ is not to scape-goat but to bear one another's burdens in love even unto the Cross. Where is that revealed in any of this? I have yet to see it.

Mark, I hope you follow your usual procedure and shut down during Lent. It would help us all.

(Editor's note: Ignorance is only bliss where tis folly to be wise. It is not slander if it is true, which is not to say people don't write terrible things about others they should not. Finally, I have never shut this site down for Lent. I shut down during Holy Week and Pascha, and resume in Bright Week, a practice I will surely follow again this year. )

All appearances are that he disagreed with two of the Metropolitan's positions. I might add, neither of which appear to be things the Metropolitan has any support from anyone. (a sexual misconduct report and the move to DC)

This disagreement is enough to get him ousted? Outward appearances sure seem so...

Not too much concern there from you Michael; but you are concerned about us having concerns?

The last chancellor wasn't even entirely honest and he was there a long time.

The days where we accept unconditional brown nosing ought to be over. Rethink our criticisms; they are not without merit.

The day the OCA is a despots playground is over.

You ought to be glad people are watching closely. Metropolitan Jonah ought to be glad, too; it means people care.

Jesus said, "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free." John 8:32. Do we not threaten our spiritual well-being when we label facts as slander? Did the Spiritual Fathers not identify such mentality as fantasy (aka prelest)? May God save us from the debilitating effects of "spin" and narcissism where we love the fantasy more that the truth. Such character foundations are built on shifting sand, are they not?